Once taxed it then belongs to the government, in a very real sense, the tax-payer no longer have access to it. While it no longer belongs to the tax-payer, it does not therefore follow that they did not earn it.
Why do some institutions (property law, contract law) count towards what I truly morally earned but not others (taxation law)?
It doesn't. It rightfully belongs to the poor who need food and healthcare.
Why is it greed for someone to keep what income/wealth/property they've earned while also is not greed to claim that someone else's income/wealth/property is actually owed to another group?
Your contention is that some institutions count as property rights (contract law etc), but taxation law doesn't. I'm telling you the line between them that you draw is drawn purely with ideology.
Taxation law isn't some adjustment that takes place after property law, it is part of property law. $X of tax paid by party A that ends up funding $X of social security payments to party B, literally belongs to party B. It is the property of party B. Not party A. It is not "someone else's" in any way.
In that way there's nothing special about the quote because most people generally recognize private ownership in everyday speech.
Claiming that something is true simply because of law is fairly short sighted. There have been and continue to be unjust laws worldwide.
"That's what the law says" is a lousy moral justification for something. There are plenty of unjust laws or just things that are not laws.
Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.
If you work for me for $15/hr and produce value v where $v <= $15, I won't keep you on.
>> Why did the rich man "earn" it but not the poor man? Why is it "somebody else's" when it's the poor man's money but not when it's the rich man's money?
>> The answer is ideology.
> His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption.
No it doesn't. His comment holds true only if you assume the current economic system that created the rich and poor men is right and just. For instance: the rich man is rich typically because he owns the capital (which can be owned at massive scale) and "earns" its profits. The laborers that operate that capital for him are much poorer than he is, because all they "earn" are wages for their time (which cannot scale). Sure a particular rich man theoretically can loose his shirt (but so can laborers, for different reasons), but the general relationship will remain the same between those groups under the current system.
It's a deeply ideological assumption that the labor that enables profit is entitled to none of it (as such), and the owner (who may have enabled none of it) is entitled to all of it. Admittedly, it's an ideological assumption so fundamental to current society that it can be as hard to see as a mountain you're standing on.
> Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.
I think the point is it's not much of an argument if it's little more than the output of certain ideological assumptions (e.g. assume P therefore P).
There is is no input from people with lower income. It’s an insider group that negotiates and deals with itself.
The notes on political corruption and union stomping over the past 60 years are intriguing, do you have any good references to solid academic sources on these or related topics?
So I fully understand how you think his views are utra-reductionist.
The partial solution for information involves requiring more disclosures, having a smaller government with higher transparence, and (historically impossible) making that information easily available and publicly searchable on the internet. This also tends to help reduce the corruption issue.
A complete solution for either corruption or information transfer seems out of reach at the moment.
The short answer is simply that of all the systems we've tried as humans, capitalism (though imperfect) is the least worst and results in the least human suffering.