Shorter Sullivan

Inasmuch as rationalization in support of selfishness is cowardly (it’s mostly unconscious), I agree. This is pure mental masturbation:

”He'll ask the socialist, in turn, why he is being forced to give up his own money and property for the sake an idea of substantive equality that sounds like a surreal fantasy to him. Who guarantees either vision - that of the virtuous or that of the substantively equal? And who says what is virtue? And by whose standard do we judge substantive equality? If inequality remains after redistribution, what then? And, by the way, how do we control a state that has the power to divest me of my income and wealth and property?”

Moral “virtue” is often in the eye of the beholder so government has no role in regulating personal liberty in that realm – as long as no one else gets hurt. Substantive equality is, well, substantive. It can be measured in dollars and cents. And modest government redistribution via progressive taxation (like regulation of the marketplace) has already proved enormously beneficial to the society and the individual, even the individual who is being taxed. Therefore, the only question is qualitative – what’s the optimum level of regulation and taxation. You control that (the state) through democratic representation, best done with equal weight given only to individual citizens, including the wealthy and skeptical conservatives.

Shorter Sullivan:
Conservatives don’t trust democracy.

Shorter Shep:

Thank God (or the interdimensional Karmic forces influencing the universe) that corporations don't vote.

That should (at least) be spelled g-o-d with a lower case 'g.'

:^)

I wasn't offended, even if I think liberals deserve the credit.

;-)