So here's the problem with the idea of "let man keep the fruits of his labor, since it was his ingenuity and risk that lead to his rewards" paraphrasing of course. In such a closed system it quickly becomes a matter of minimizing risks and maximizing rewards. While there are corner case exceptions, the men already with money/power have the leverage to distribute the risk to everyone else and keep all the reward for themselves. Which is what we've been seeing the last 20-30 years.
I just don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. The inventor that toils in his garage inventing the vibrator that calls you the next day or whatever should certainly benefit from the fruit of his labor and ingenuity. To an extent this ought to be true for corporate entities as well, so its just where to draw the line where we will disagree. A corporation that owns in total the scientific discoveries of its employees discovers a cure for AIDS. There is and will be a point at which their desire to recoup expenses for research will interfere with the administration of such a cure. If you hold life sacred you must hold it above the rights of someone to make a buck.
That's an extreme example, but there are plenty of others where more harm is done by the insistence upon returns on an investment obscures the goal of the invested. It doesn't have to involve lives. I tend to swing rather utilitarian in my beliefs. I think that the restrictions on a person's (or corporate entity's) behavior should be proportional to his (or its) power and influence. This is especially true when it comes to things that are harmful to everyone.
If there's any one thing that separates us from our lesser primate cousins it is our ability and the degree to which we cooperate with one another on everything. Society is all about cooperation. The everyone out for himself mentality only serves society incidentally. Government spending is one way in which we can all work together on something while not needing the specialized skills or knowledge to participate directly. Specifically, government provides an avenue for investment in things that the free market doesn't value, in other words things that won't see a short term return on investment. Dealing with the externalities created by the excesses OF the free market is one of those things. It's a necessary balance.
While we will certainly disagree on how our gov't has invested such tax money, I don't think that private industry would have created a space program or the internet without public sector dollars leading the way.
So to answer your question, in a vacuum, a world in which there are no negative externalities for one's actions, sure everyone should reap what he sows. But that's a fairyland. On a personal note I think that the system in which people can make money by moving money around, however deftly, is broken. That such a system exists and has in fact been encouraged to grow and thrive with very little personal risk, and that what risk there is has been distributed to non-participants, speaks to our priorities as a society. And not well.
The questions raised by Doctor King are poignant. As Americans we can't stand the idea of someone getting by without having earned it, whatever subjective definition we apply to that word. And yet our society celebrates the excesses of those who have, through ingenuity and legal loopholes, taken from those who have earned. Economics is a zero sum game: every dollar you "earn" is one lost somewhere else. Economic inequality will always exist, and it needs in order for there to be an incentive both to succeed and to not fail (different things), but we can for damn sure shore up the ends of that spectrum and bolster the middle.
Also, I always felt that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was more of a goal for an ideal society to strive for, not a valid modus operandi.
Removed some posts. Keep it civil.
How does one reconcile "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" with the need to restrict population growth (which is the key factor in reducing the rate we're polluting the planet)?
Which question are you asking?
From each according to their ability to each according to their need is very reconcilable to population control. The next generation (well, if we're lucky we have 1 or 2 more) needs more resources than our current populatioin growth will support. The current generation can control population growth (surgically, if needed).
It looks like you're trying to toss the idea of each person keeping the fruits of their labor into the mix. Thats an external idea, and doesn't show an internal contradiction.
Turn left at the next intersection and go three more miles.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Huh. This phrase is older than I thought it was.