The only parallel I draw is the indignant assertion of god-given rights to a system that advantages us and not others. That's fine as long as the have-nots are few or disorganized or live in a Police state. Otherwise eventually they will organize and assert their power one way or another.

a.k.a The Politics of Need...which largely got us into the Housing mess. (Again, I quote George Bush, who promised to use the mightly muscle of government to make housing affordable to certain "minority" and "disadvantaged" groups. How'd that one turn out???

The rich English considered that their benefits were earned and that the colonials were being uppity. The local majority disagreed and eventually it acted. There is your parallel.

That is no parallel at all. Take a look at how much Obama wants to gut people making over $300,000 a year, then come back to me and tell me who has the "power" here....

What you are describing is the problem with not having an "objective standard" by which to evaluate what is rightfully "earned". Here's a little hint: the Austrian school of economics basically drove a stake into the heart of the socialist argument of "earnings" that you are so cleverly trying to sneak in.

This country has bent over backwards since the Great Depression to achieve a more egalitarian-like structure between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots".....and despite the ever-increasing welfare state, despite every new program to seize earnings from those who are more able. we still see a huge role reversal regarding the "hawks" and "doves" - the "hawks" continue to coo apologetically, while the doves continue to scream their heads off for more.