Mr. DeBar,

I enjoyed your thoughtful response.  I would engage you at many points,
for the most part to clarify rather than disagree, but time and my
aversion to easy, sound bitey answers limits me to one or two at a time.
First, you said:

<Good point; for example, who is the "earner" here, the grandson of some
<investor descended from feudal nobility who happens to "own" the firm
<producing widgets, or the person who is slaving away building the damned
<things all day in the same factory his father and mother worked?

You diverted attention slightly from the issue of my focus, that of
exchange between honorable individuals of any heritage to that of
heritage alone.  Feudal nobility maintains their position by means of
force and deception except in the rare occasion that they truly establish
and protect the opportunity for all to flourish within their domain. It
is the use of force and deception and those who use it which must be
attacked, not just some stereotyped "nobility" per se.  To return to my
point;  if a statement in the UDHR is meant to guarantee food, a job,
dignity and so on for everyone whether or not they have earned it,
uninspired humans will gather at the trough to feed and reproduce and
feed and reproduce and feed ...  obtaining sustenance they have not
earned and thereby being degraded as self-reliant, responsible life
entities.  Self-esteem must be earned ... self-esteem itself can not be
given or forced.  Eventually,  as those who fill it tire or revolt, the
trough will be emptied and all who have been seduced by the other side of
the altruistic ideal will become very hungry and loud and angry.  This is
not a very stable set up.  How about espousing the ideal "To each
according to his ability, energy and focus.  From each according to his
voluntary willingness to give."

You continue:

>Who should own the largest share of agriculture in the US, the
descendants of >the people who built and worked the farms, or the
descendants of their >"owners"?

Who are the stockholders of Archer Daniels Midland?  In part, any of us
who have not consumed all their production and invested some of the
excess in ADM stock.  BTW, I do not believe ADM is an honorable company
and above using force to gain advantage over their competition, some of
whom are the small, family farmers you may be including in your "people
who built and worked the farms."   ADM is certainly active in lobbying
the federal government for favors and anything the government wants done
is backed by the gun.  Again, attack the use of force by detecting,
investigating, trying, convicting and incarcerating those who use it.  It
is impractical and self-defeating to attack a stereotyped class of people
or an idea (shades of Don Quixote).  But your question is, "who should
own ..." and I would answer,  whoever holds such ownership as a goal,
educates himself in the necessary skills, expresses his intention to the
community and his "network," obtains financing, founds the operation and
operates it.  The community at large should protect him from coercion and
fraud so that he can flourish.  Who should be allowed to be philosophers?
 Whoever holds such a professional designation as a goal, educates
himself in the necessary skills (writing) and knowledge (everything),
expresses his intention to the community and his "network" (of peers),
obtains financing (sustains himself with a day job), founds the operation
and operates it.  Does it work for you?

I deeply appreciate your attention.

Don Brayton
[log in to unmask]