Well, just got back from the water...good day under the sun. See that yall have been at it...Mo...out in Left field/tunnel vision Utopia. Guess it's time for this one to go to Rantard heaven.
Re that bottle of wine disagreement. The whole societal economy is based upon the production and trade of goods and services. Each of us are rewarded for the value (determined by demand and supply) of the good or service that we offer. No offer...no reward. The man (salesman) bought the wine, poured by the tipped (deduction) waiter, from the happy winemaker, for a client whom he hopes will add to the Corporate coffers, and the Corporation 'wrote it off' of it's taxes. TAXES to the government for what beneficial economic service? To protect it's/our freedom (Free Market) to engage in that merit-based collective production and exchange of goods and services.
The way that Mo frames and addresses his own question (not mine)...would be 'what do Corporations owe poor folk' (through government taxation)? Nothing to do with the particular OP - which addresses whether citizens who demand social justice subsidies from those who labor, and as well those who INVEST in Corporations using the monetary fruits of their legitimate labor and who rightfully expect a return, for the risk - whether such folk who ride the wagon owe anything at all.
I can not think of a single time when Mo addressed whether or not an individual who contributes nothing to the system has a moral
right to make a demand for subsidization from it. Didn't touch it...went straight to demonizing the (immorality of) PEOPLE who are the essence of Corporations. I don't defend Corporations...they are a group of people; groups of people will always be good and bad. If they get out of line like BP, serving unqualified profit motivation...make em pay. Play fair...or get whacked.
And damn the subsidies and bailouts, to private Corporations. Especially political cronyism. Though there are instances where if China subsidizes hers, to run ours out of business and establish a monoploy and hold power over ideological and economic competitors...then subsidies might be warranted. Especially in critical instances...for sure.
Charity to the poor, and those less able to compete, might be warranted. In fact, service toward the weaker brethren is the opportunistic pinnacle of human spiritual enterprise. For the individual DOING THE GIVING. But only and if that charity DOES NO HARM to the Individual or the Collective recieving it. Who spoils their kids, giving on demand with no qualifiers? Only a fool whose serving hand will get bit. Qualifiers is key.
The point of my original OP was that if we are entering a new experimental era of some sort, employing a State-based economic order which uses high tech productive power to create a largesse of charitable potential to 'spread the wealth around'...then fine with me. Food stamps for all. But there had damn well better be some ground rules...other than the rich are evil and the poor are good. BS!
But what I see going on out there is about as far from being a fruitful spiritual/charitable enterprise - concocted with solid moral rules and lending no harm - as I could imagine. In fact, it looks like just the opposite; an envisioned paradigm of Law, based up a moral premise where an unqualified outright heathen (having no moral compass) could demand equality...or IS...essentially...EQUAL.
That is utter madness. If not downright EVIL. It's bound to fail, as it should. Shame on the *leaders* who foist this lie on the ignorant and the misguided, for whatever reason. The suffering that will befall the folk at the fall of this perverted egalatarian power grab, should be hung right around the necks of them that perpetrate it. Disgusting! God will judge. IMHO. And if God don't...Nature sure as hell will.