Replies

"In other words he is speaking to all the Latin American countries where crony capitalism runs amok, and is urging in all such countries where such oppression is seen, the state should step in to redistribute the economic benefit garnered via human exploitation (which is what crony capitalism is). And this redistribution should not be to take money from the rich and give to the poor, rather it should be a redistribution of economic “benefit”, such that other people, rather than just those who have government friends, can start businesses and earn livings for themselves, through their own hard work. Rather than being enslaved by those in their own government who, by favoritism shown to their employers by the state, enable only some to prosper economically, but not all. So this isn’t Marxist. I should hope that would be clear. If anything “political” it’s “individualist”."

Well, you have an interesting argument, but his plain words are the redistribution of wealth. He is also talking about the legitimate redistribution; who determines legitimate? Also, it is really hard to justify the coercive actions of the state to take from some to give to others, with the attendant costs and loss of freedom, and call it "individualist."

Well, you have an interesting argument, but his plain words are the redistribution of wealth.

Well that's my point those are not his words. Those are the Philly Enquirer's words. He said "redistribution of economic benefit." And as I said elsewhere this can be understood as not only curbing crony capitalism, but tax reductions, limiting the size of federal government, and onerous regulations. All, when done, redistribute economic benefit from the few who receive it (federal workers and contractors and friends of same) to more people, people who just want to work for themselves and help their own families.

In other words, making the BENEFIT of economic activity available to more.

I submit my interpretation is probably correct because he didn't say "redistribution of wealth", he said "redistribution of economic benefit". One must ask, to be reasonable, if he's just another Marxist railing against personal wealth, why did he say "economic BENEFIT" and not simply "money"?

Also as I said elsewhere as conservatives we have almost a reflexive hatred for the Marxist buzzwords like "redistribution" but the mere word "redistribution" doesn't necessarily mean "forced redistribution of money or wealth."

He's not a very effective speaker and indeed may have some leftist leanings, but he has said flat out before Marxism is wrong so, given that and the reasonable alternative above, I submit it's reasonable to believe he's only trying to ensure as many people as possible are not enslaved by either statist philosophies or "capitalists" who only seek to exploit people, and not treat them as fellow human beings, through the power of the state (aka crony capitalism).

In other words he's promoting the very Catholic idea of subsidiarity. (Which is not liberation theology mind you)

So who should determine what is "legitimate" in this scenario? Well under the notion of subsidiarity local groups (all the way down to the individual when possible)'determine that. Under subsidiarity, federal intervention is only the last resort. It's not the strict American ideal, as I've said, but it's certainly not Marxism. Or socialism.