Students in Favor of Wealth Distribution Asked to Pass Grade Points to Others

[Aristotelian]

Define "earned." The student, unless he or she cheated or had sex with the teacher, earned the grades. The CEO and shareholders only earned their profits from the labor of others, for whom they feel free to lay off or cut wages or denigrate their working conditions. You may believe that the CEO or shareholders have the right or privilege to do so, but comparing GPA's to redistribution of wealth is still a false analogy, in my opinion.

That's based on a pure labour theory of production - i.e., that all value flows from the labour put into it. The problem with this theory is that it's demonstrably wrong.

If I labour all year in a field then there will be a small crop at the end based on the seeds which nature has placed in the field. If you come along with seeds, a tractor and other agricultural equipment (capital) and lend this to me I can mix the two factors of production (my labour and your capital) and the outcome will be a vastly higher crop at the end of the season. As the crop is the result of both my labour and your capital is it not reasonable that some of the rewards flow to me and some to you - this division could be by me renting your capital, or by you hiring me to work...either way, you and I both get rewards from the value created by the mixing of capital and labour.

[Eupher]

OhioGringo, in the event you return to this thread:

How/why is it you libs tend to complicate a relatively simple concept to the point it's incomprehensible?

It's simple enough -- Aristotlian's analogy works fabulously, since you don't like the GPA illustration.

Why is it fundamentally wrong to expect a reward for work performed successfully? Note that I'm NOT asking if it's wrong to expect a reward for work performed. The key and operative word here is "successfully". Why reward shithack work with benefits that aren't deserved?

Why is that a complex issue for discussion?