Reply #128: Could have fooled me... [View All]

..perhaps we're dancing around the definition of "deserve"? I didn't mean to imply any sense of biological entitlement, just that, if a person is rich by otherwise legal means, they therefore deserve that wealth.

If you still disagree, explain: If someone is rich through otherwise *legal* means (inheritance, loopholes in the law, an inefficient market, example: CEO salaries), how does a libertarian say they DON'T "deserve" their wealth?

To contrast, many European countries recognize that LUCK should be "moderated" by society, both good and bad. But isn't that the ANTITHESIS of libertarianism?

Personally, I subscribe to a modified version of the European attitude...

However, I believe we're playing with the implied definition of "deserve" and really don't have a disagreement here...