Why Income Inequality Is Not A Bad Thing

     There has been much talk from the White House and others on the Left about "income inequality," as if it is the scourge of civilized society. But income equality is the sign of a stagnant and corrupt culture. Stagnant, because when incomes are equalized by the force of government, wealth creation, innovation, and prosperity suffer and die. Corrupt, because the amount of authority that must be given to government to equalize incomes breeds crony capitalism, bureaucratic greed, and a loss of individual liberty that has its roots in economic freedom.
     It is one of the glaring hypocrisies of the Left that they support and evangelize for what they call diversity in every other aspect of our culture except the economy. Income equality, by its very definition and nature, necessitates an economy that is anything but diverse. The founders of this great nation dedicated their fortunes, lives, and sacred honors to a cause that had its foundations first and foremost in economic freedom. The freedom of men to advance their economic conditions as far as their talents, ambitions, and personal industry would take them. When government aims to equalize incomes, economic freedom dies, and along with it, a nation's prosperity and innovative spirit.
     When Abraham Lincoln said that, "a man does not build his own house by tearing down his neighbor's house," he was not only talking about structures made of wood and stone. He was referring to a man's personal wealth that is destroyed by income re-distribution. And it is not just personal wealth that is destroyed by the misguided and dangerous concept of income equality, but all the good that a man's wealth can do in the society at large. Much more good is done for the less fortunate by private wealth creation of the successful than any government bureaucracy can ever dream of accomplishing. Even celebrity Leftist Bono recently admitted, begrudgingly, that capitalism  has lifted more persons out of poverty than all the government programs that have ever existed.
     The rank and file Leftists who follow the doctrine of fairness promulgated by power-hungry politicians with the advancement of income equality, may not be so quick to bow at the altar of class warfare if their hard-earned wealth was on the chopping block of income tyranny. I find it somewhat ironic that most of those who push for income re-distribution are Leftist politicians who stand to gain personal wealth and power from being the ones who implement the re-distribution, or they are folks who have no wealth of their own nor the ambition to create any. That which makes income inequality healthy for a free society can be found in the utter failure and misery of systems that vigorously re-distribute wealth.
     I recall during the height of the Occupy Wall St. craze that some protesters were horrified that their iPads, iPhones, and other devices were being stolen by their fellow Occupiers. But it was illustrative of the society for which they were advocating, one in which those that have must "share" with those that do not have. Of course, it is very unlikely that any of the Occupiers, or anyone else who advocates for wealth re-distribution, will ever recognize the folly and dichotomy of their position. It is a shame that some advocate for the destructive power of redistributive policies, instead of the life-giving tenets of economic freedom.