As for the candidate, give him a 4-6 month severance package and help him find another job. As a CEO , he understands somethings aren't personal. It's a simple matter of of business.

I'm sure his wife will hate you though.

The Harvard Business Review blog, Voices, held a colorful debate on the subject of ethics several months back. I participated in the debate but bailed when the moderator took on a Howard Cosell persona. The responses were interesting to say the least. You should check it out.

As for the candidate, give him a 4-6 month severance package and help him find another job. As a CEO , he understands somethings aren't personal. It's a simple matter of of business.

I'm sure his wife will hate you though.

The Harvard Business Review blog, Voices, held a colorful debate on the subject of ethics several months back. I participated in the debate but bailed when the moderator took on a Howard Cosell persona. The responses were interesting to say the least. You should check it out.

You also seem to have ignored the notion of “ownership” in your ethical analysis. Louie didn't own his stuff — he was the king, not the god. Taking money from the government (who forcibly took it from the people) is ethically on a different field than taking money from one who earned it and owns it.

Also, the rising tide metaphor is true — it's a basic economic fact. The countries with the most rich people also have “lower class” people who live like kings compared to other countries. It's not perfect, compared to the rich, but compared to the living standards in other countries, it's amazing.

It's about objective gain and profit — not comparisons. I don't give a shit that you probably have a nicer computer than mine because I don't base my identity on being better or worse than you — I base my identity on being the best I can be.

You also seem to just be assuming that redistribution -does- lead to a more fair world. We've… never seen this happen. A man who earns $15k and accepts welfare is less likely to make it to the middle and upper classes than a man who doesn't. Just… do the research.

If you still believe this, then I challenge you to reduce your income to $20,000 per year, donate your money to Charity Water, and downsize your house/apartment, car and computer. If you can't do this… well. It was a fun theoretical discussion about what to do with other people's money. =)

Sorry. It's just the economist in me that required I make the point. ;-)

You also seem to have ignored the notion of “ownership” in your ethical analysis. Louie didn't own his stuff — he was the king, not the god. Taking money from the government (who forcibly took it from the people) is ethically on a different field than taking money from one who earned it and owns it.

Also, the rising tide metaphor is true — it's a basic economic fact. The countries with the most rich people also have “lower class” people who live like kings compared to other countries. It's not perfect, compared to the rich, but compared to the living standards in other countries, it's amazing.

It's about objective gain and profit — not comparisons. I don't give a shit that you probably have a nicer computer than mine because I don't base my identity on being better or worse than you — I base my identity on being the best I can be.

You also seem to just be assuming that redistribution -does- lead to a more fair world. We've… never seen this happen. A man who earns $15k and accepts welfare is less likely to make it to the middle and upper classes than a man who doesn't. Just… do the research.

If you still believe this, then I challenge you to reduce your income to $20,000 per year, donate your money to Charity Water, and downsize your house/apartment, car and computer. If you can't do this… well. It was a fun theoretical discussion about what to do with other people's money. =)

Sorry. It's just the economist in me that required I make the point. ;-)