While attending a leadership conference years ago, the speaker instructed his audience to take out a sheet of provided notebook paper and in thirty seconds, tear it into as many pieces as possible.
Begin.
Tentatively, the attendees began tearing.
When the time was up, everyone was told to stop tearing and count the number of pieces of torn paper.
As expected, everyone had a different number of pieces, with results varying widely.
The point of the exercise was to show that even though everyone had been given the same amount of material, the same amount of time and the same amount of instruction, each person produced different results.
These unequal outcomes were natural and fair.
The notion of using the political process to equalize outcomes is both unfair and unnatural.
Individual results should not be separated from effort.
High School graduates typically earn around fifty percent more than those who drop out.
Not only is that fair it should be repeatedly explained to every student at every grade level.
Your behavior has consequences, sometimes expensive ones.
Personal improvement should have enviable incentives.
The call had gone out yet again for politicians to confiscate even more money from the producers in America; the ones earning big paychecks.
If we believe that we are justified in confiscating the money and property of someone else at the point of a gun then why not just invade a rich country that has a small army? We can take their money, sell off their resources and leave the population to pick up the pieces afterwards.
Either this behavior is acceptable or it isn't.
Why should we plunder our own people? Even a wild animal knows better to defecate where it eats.
If the populations of other countries are entitled to keep what they earn then Americans deserve no less.
Communism suggests that we canhave our cake and eat it too.
If you are a working citizen with any degree of success you would be called upon to pay for the cake and then not receive a frosted crumb.
Communism touts "equal work for equal pay.
" That mantra works as long as the inverse holds true as well: unequal pay for unequal work.
Heart surgeons deserve to be paid more money than retail clerks.
Increased education and highly-developed skills should allow you to earn more than the alternative.
Interestingly enough, that is what opens capitalism up for attack.
In capitalism, your rewards are directly related to your contribution.
Advanced abilities combined with personal effort will rightfully deliver improved outcomes.
It is not the economic system that is unequal but the participants.
Increased income should come from improved effort on your part.
Envy may feel productive but it produces no improvement.
Perhaps the call of communism should be "equal pay for unequal work.
" You get the same results regardless of the level of experience acquired or amount of work accomplished.
If that notion is loved and desired by so many then why does it have to be mandated by law and enforced at gunpoint? Equal work for equal pay.
If only that were true.
Begin.
Tentatively, the attendees began tearing.
When the time was up, everyone was told to stop tearing and count the number of pieces of torn paper.
As expected, everyone had a different number of pieces, with results varying widely.
The point of the exercise was to show that even though everyone had been given the same amount of material, the same amount of time and the same amount of instruction, each person produced different results.
These unequal outcomes were natural and fair.
The notion of using the political process to equalize outcomes is both unfair and unnatural.
Individual results should not be separated from effort.
High School graduates typically earn around fifty percent more than those who drop out.
Not only is that fair it should be repeatedly explained to every student at every grade level.
Your behavior has consequences, sometimes expensive ones.
Personal improvement should have enviable incentives.
The call had gone out yet again for politicians to confiscate even more money from the producers in America; the ones earning big paychecks.
If we believe that we are justified in confiscating the money and property of someone else at the point of a gun then why not just invade a rich country that has a small army? We can take their money, sell off their resources and leave the population to pick up the pieces afterwards.
Either this behavior is acceptable or it isn't.
Why should we plunder our own people? Even a wild animal knows better to defecate where it eats.
If the populations of other countries are entitled to keep what they earn then Americans deserve no less.
Communism suggests that we canhave our cake and eat it too.
If you are a working citizen with any degree of success you would be called upon to pay for the cake and then not receive a frosted crumb.
Communism touts "equal work for equal pay.
" That mantra works as long as the inverse holds true as well: unequal pay for unequal work.
Heart surgeons deserve to be paid more money than retail clerks.
Increased education and highly-developed skills should allow you to earn more than the alternative.
Interestingly enough, that is what opens capitalism up for attack.
In capitalism, your rewards are directly related to your contribution.
Advanced abilities combined with personal effort will rightfully deliver improved outcomes.
It is not the economic system that is unequal but the participants.
Increased income should come from improved effort on your part.
Envy may feel productive but it produces no improvement.
Perhaps the call of communism should be "equal pay for unequal work.
" You get the same results regardless of the level of experience acquired or amount of work accomplished.
If that notion is loved and desired by so many then why does it have to be mandated by law and enforced at gunpoint? Equal work for equal pay.
If only that were true.
Source...