The distinction that must always be kept in mind is the one between
voluntary and coerced
behavior.
I assume that Mr. Biafra's proposal was for such a cap
to be set by law, as was the cap called for in the platform of the
Green Party during the 2000 U.S. elections.
The cap referred to by deep thought is a voluntary agreement by
individuals to restrict their own behavior in the context of a
voluntary association. (The fact that some of
them cheat is not germane.)
Of all the wishful thinking indulged in by liberals, this
should be among the easiest for any person to see through;
- From a moral standpoint; it can easily be seen
as a horrific violation of property rights simply by listening
to the bureaucrat citing a violator:
You, sir, are not permitted to give this sum of money, which is
unquestionably your property, to that person, who is willing to
take it from you.
It amazes me that people actually think that it's their business
to control other people that way.
- From an economic standpoint; economics is the
process whereby a person expresses how valuable e
considers a thing to be, always in terms of what else
e will give up in order to have it. Since labor is no different
in an economic sense than any other good, in order to be consistent
(not generally an overriding concern of liberals),
they
will need to put a cap on all other valuations as well.
Hey, Presto!, every house within twenty miles of me right now are
all worth the same! Now all I need is a law to force the owner
of the one I want to sell it to me!
How many times must price controls fail before people believe this?
And yes, ModernAngel, it and the other abominations
you mentioned are UnAmerican. Well, they used to be;
unfortunately, the definition of American has changed.