For example money handed over to a beggar is equivalent money being returned to the rightful owner by a thief. The thief has no right to feel morally good.

They did not “grab the money” (Soros may – but they did not) they WORKED and created things of value. And that including bankers like J. P. Morgan. They were not perfect people (they did bad things as well as good) – but most of their work EVEN BEFORE THEIR CHARITABLE WORK did good.

However, yes they also got their profits and either reinvested them or used them in charitable work (luxury living took up a very small percentage of profits with most people).

And yes even the ones who did not give away all their wealth tended to “tithe” – the idea that (for example) most American industrialists and other businessmen were “social Darwinists” (whatever that means exactly) is a myth. Most of them had not even heard much of Darwin (they did not tend to have been to college, and their schooling was limited), they tended to be fairly ordinary Christians (of one sort or another) NOT hostile to ideas of biological evolution, but not thinking of evolution as a “social philosophy” either.

So they tithed (at least) – yet even before they gave a Dollar to charity they aided mankind (by the very act of their work), the man on the video is (however much he has tried to liberate himself) still trapped in the fallacies of Karl Marx.

Contrary to what the man on the video claims private property does not cause poverty (even though people like President Teddy Roosevelt seem to agree with him – with the claim that American steel mills had the created poverty, actually they had the highest wages in the world and vastly higher than at any time in history).

However, the man on the video is right to mock “fair trade”and “eco capitalism”.

It is the duty of a businessman to buy at the cheapest source and to produce at the highest quality level that can be done.

Going to Starbucks and buying fair trade coffee does indeed NOT help the poor (it is absurd to buy higher price coffee kidding oneself that this helps the poor).

Coffee should be produced as cheaply and well as possible – it is THIS that will help people in Honduras.

This “consumer caring capitalism” is absurd.

Buy products you like at the cheapest prices you can – do not buy expensive (and lower quality) products in the deluded belief that you are helping the poor.

By your WORK (your production) you help the poor – and if you wish to help them more, then give money to aid them directly.

For example, buy textbooks and pay teachers to help poor children to learn to read.

Take the example of the half a million people (and it was actually over a half a million) who attended the Glenn Beck “Restoring Honor” event in Washington on Saturday.

They are working people – one could tell that by the way they left the place clean (indeed clearner than it was when they arrived) they picked up all their bits of paper and water bottles (and so on) and removed them themselves.

Compare that to a leftist rally – for example Barack Obama’s swearing in as President, the students and other such who came left that part of Washington looking like a garbage dump.

And with a normal leftist rally it is worse – smashed windows, turned over and burned cars (such things are the norm – but the media ignore it).

It is NOT rich and poor – many of the people who came on Saturday were poor (they had to sacrifice a lot just to afford to come), and many leftists are rich and come from rich families.

It is the type of people – which can be seen in their actions (not the size of their bank accounts).

However, it was a lot more than keeping Washington tidy.

These people go back to their homes and they WORK (in humble jobs most of them – but they do the best they can), and they also tithe.

In spite of the crushing weight of local, State and Federal taxes these people (these half a million – and all the millions of people who support them but were not there for this event) give a least 10% of their income to the poor (mostly via their churches).

They do not go to Starbucks and feel good about themselves – they go down the street to the house that is a bad state of repair lived in by a family with the father who is out of work and say “neighbour please let me help you – I know you would help me”.

Not just sentimental story telling by me – look at the figures for ordinary people, who gives and who does NOT give.

(you might start by looking at how much of their large incomes Barack Obama and Joe Biden gave to help people – BEFORE they stated to run for the office of President).

The bedrock (the foundation) of what the man in the video might call “traditional capitalism” is still there – the people who WORK (both as employers and employees) and the people who GIVE, for they are the same people.

If Perry is SO clever and the rest of us so dumb we just don’t geddit, why the hell won’t he enlighten us all?

Because if you can’t figure it out yourself then you are too dumb to geddit of course… and I refuse to take the bait… even if it is breasts

Essentially this is a marxist criticising charity on the basis that it simply improves the life of the poor but perpetuates the capitalist system.

But the system he is criticising is not actually that capitalist is it? The Soros reference is key to this critique as never was there a more clear foe of free markets than the Obama loving Soros.

A great many impeccable free market commentators have made the exact same point about the problem of charity perpetuating what it seeks to alleviate.

Did you smear your man nipples in bacon grease or something? If not, you might want to carefully rephrase that…

A “proper libertarian” is someone who has achieved oneness with the notion that he should mind his own business. To be distinguished from a “libertarian in training” who thinks he has achieved such oneness, though it is in reality still a work in progress.

Fwiw my take on the vid…his fundamental argument rests on the assumption that old skool philanthropic capitalists steal from society with one hand and give back with the other. Nothing in this ten minute flight of intellectual fancy substantiates this basic argument. The rest of the talk seems mildly thought-provoking.

I await Perry’s fascinating exposition with baited breasts.

So OK, who among the commentariat was betting on that revelation?