Thus, when you speak of morality, clearly there is a difference in morality when illustrating a "rich" man working hard to make money for his family and a poorer envious man who believes that he is somehow entitled to this rich man's money. According to Judeo-Christian values, a poor man who is envious of a richer man's wealth is clearly committing a sin, and is thereby immoral. Thus, you were incorrect in stating that there was a moral equivalency between the two.
If you understood the content of my prior post, you would know that I was referring to equality of treatment (e.g. the same rules applied equally to all citizens).Equality, at least if we pretend that your argument has any resemblance of economic reality, can refer to opportunity or outcome. On both counts you're on a loser.
Wrong. Being a proponent for equality is the epitome of objectivity.There's no objectivity in your stance. Its purely based on one (easily rejected) morality splurge.
How does it make no sense? Why don't you show me an example of a successful Socialist nation?This is a cretinous comment. First, how can wealth redistribution fail? That makes no sense.