Replies

Whether the redistribution of the world's wealth-producing assets are orchestrated by international organizations or transnational corporations, it must be resisted by U.S. officials whose duty is to protect the prosperity and security of the American people.

The KEY point here! And it SHOULD be OBVIOUSLY so in Washington, but...

This bears repeating.

"Whether the redistribution of the world's wealth-producing assets are orchestrated by international organizations or transnational corporations, it must be resisted by U.S. officials whose duty is to protect the prosperity and security of the American people. "

A zero-sum world, where the only way for one people to gain is to take wealth away from some other people, is not conducive to peace.

Aye, this is true. In a zero sum world, there would exist no politics, no rights- just the rule of the gun.

Luckily we do not live in a zero sum world.

Whether the redistribution of the world's wealth-producing assets are orchestrated by international organizations or transnational corporations, it must be resisted by U.S. officials whose duty is to protect the prosperity and security of the American people.

Also, there's a logical fallacy in this guy's reasoning. In a zero sum world there is NO wealth production therefore there can be no wealth producing assets. There is no such thing as "redistributing wealth producing assets" because the primary apparatus for the creation of wealth is the human mind- how do you chop that up?

Furthermore, it seems apparant that he buys into the Marxist world view by calling it the world's wealth producing assets. He uses the possessive- implying that it belongs to the world when nothing could be further from the truth. Companies and Corporations do not and should not belong to the world or even the state in which they operate. Ford Motor Company isn't one of the USA's assets. It is an asset of its shareholders- end of story. Company/business/corporations belong to individuals not states- not the collective. It's about private property.

The first is the notion that it is unfair for the United States and other developed countries to have so much while the Third World has so little.

Now if this should read like this – The first is the notion the it is unfair for the Unions and other laborers to have so little while the corporations and those who work hard to succeed to have more than those in the Unions.

Sounds just like Tom Daschel and Dick Gephardt and their on-going poor against the rich rhetoric and for the same reasons as the UN, control through welfare.