Randall Parker

Has a post up which struck me as a bit odd when I first read it.  After further thought on it, I can sort of see what the problem is.

There is a conflict between benefactors and those on the receiving end.   There is no incentive to produce if the receivers can take your goods without giving you proper compensation.  Yet, at the same time, it is important to spread the benefits of knowledge as far as possible.

That paragraph above is almost Krugman like in its sentiments.  But one difference.  The left wants to take without any compensation at all.  The grounds for this is for the public good.  Yet, it cannot be good if there exists no incentive to produce the wealth at all.  On the other hand, wealth cannot be allowed to be hoarded.  If it is hoarded, then nobody, not even the wealthy can benefit from it.  What good is to have a Fort Knox full of gold when there is no place to spend it?

This is a big problem, actually.  Greed, selfishness, avarice have negative connotations for good reasons.  Yet on the other side of the coin is benevolence to the point of foolishness.  There's a need for balance:  the need for finding out how to avoid being a Scrooge while at the same time avoiding becoming a soft headed fool.