HeyBub wrote:

.... snip

This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.


... and even in non-free societies, this principle prevails, it just
doesn't redound to peoples' benefit. In a society being espoused here
where the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to
their need", the person with the ability is going to act in his own self
interest and not put forth any more effort than required to keep himself in
the good graces of the commissar and out of trouble. Why bother to pursue
excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see any resulting reward
mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either lacked the skill or
motivation to achieve? Same is true in a repressive society, people act in
self-preservation to keep themselves and their families safe. In both
these cases, these actions do not advance or elevate society, but they do
exhibit the fact that people always act to improve their own personal
condition.

The shining element of Smith's observation applied to a capitalist society
is that when those actions of self-interest allow people to reap the
benefits of their labors, all of society benefits. There will always be
people in society unable or unwilling to be successful and to some, bad
things just happen. However, that is where charitable acts and the
unforced generosity of those who are successful can come into play. In
some cases, an argument can be made for local government intervention to
alleviate such issues. Using the federal government however, to pluck the
fruits of peoples' labor to give to others, when taken to a certain level
will have the results identified above.



Some people just need to keep up.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham