Well, I confess I like all of the below, except the last line I would like to put into a differenct context:
“You built a factory out there? Good for you,” she says. “But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”
She continues: “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
That last line must, MUST be voluntary. I agree with the rest. Heck, the reason western civilization has exploded technologically is that the system protected creator’s ability to keep the financial rewards of bothering to create. That is why armies, police forces and patent laws matter. People go forward to invent and create with the belief that if they are successfull, they will be rewarded.
But that last sentence, I’d question her about. It is like welfare: That is, the Lord told us to give to the poor and that it is greater to give than to receive. A major reason is the satisfaction of the “help your fellow man” gland’s need to be satiated. When you are FORCED to help, that does just the opposite. Virtually all the highly successfull people in the western world have more than spread their knowledge and opportunity to others. To insert government into that equation would be an insult and catastrophic in its long term impact to our culture.
I’d want to grill her on that last line and find out if it was just a way of getting progressives to vote for her or if she planned on putting it into legislative action, once elected. If the latter, she is dangerous.