As we are sent hurdling towards 2014 at breakneck speed, my thoughts have turned backward to the country we were, and forward to the country we are going to be. And in so much as Barack Obama complains about Republicants obstructing his progress, he has been successful at his naked goal of transforming America. The new year will bring more offensive executive orders, uncontested nominations of persons who are proudly and deliberately ignorant of constitutional principles, and more spending of future generation's money.
Now that the linchpin of constitutional subjugation, ObamaCare, has been implemented without opposition, and might I say, even acquiescence by congressional Republicants, the country we enter in 2014 will forever leave behind the remnants of a tattered republic. And if this all sounds a bit too melancholy for the New Year celebration, I am a realist, and I see Americans hating the new health care law, but accepting it because there is no backbone amongst our leaders to stand and fight for the liberty of all Americans.
Republican governors such as Rick Snyder of Michigan, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, and John Kasich of Ohio have all allowed for the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare. To the extent that there is a Republicant strategy, it seems to be not so much to oppose the unconstitutional law, but to "make it better." Some on the Right still hold out hope that if Republicants gain control of the Senate and hold the House after next year's mid-term elections, that that will be the time they will stand on their principles and fight ObamaCare, the scourge of liberty. This strategy is analogous to if the patriots in 1776 waited until they had a better equipped, better trained, and better funded army before they fought the British in the cause of liberty.
All those modacans (moderate Republicans) who crucified Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al, for vociferously and bravely opposing ObamaCare to the point of a partial shutdown of the federal government, have been proven wrong. ObamaCare did not "collapse of its own weight," as they predicted it would. If anything, implementing the modacans' strategy of doing nothing has only cleared a path for the law to proceed unencumbered, gaining momentum every day it stands unopposed.
And now as we exist in the space between the light of liberty that we leave behind in 2013, and the dark of tyranny that awaits us in 2014, the seconds, minutes, and hours tick away until the sunset of the patriots legacy and the dawn of the statist's oppression pass each other, the former to the ash heap of history, the latter to become the new order of the 21st century. One party has put flame to the United States Constitution, and the other has stood idly by, too afraid to implement the means by which the flames could be extinguished. This is the legacy of redistribution, the boot of big government on the citizen's neck, and the death of free choice that we leave the next generation.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
The Problem With Power-Filled Children
The object of the exercise of parenting is to raise children to be independent, contributing members of society. This feat is accomplished, to a large extent, by inculcating a child with a core set of values, but also by encouraging independence and strength of character through a strong will. A strong will is highly desirable, it is what sustains an individual through hard times, and is one of the main ingredients to a successful life. But so many parents, especially of the last quarter century, have not raised strong-willed children, instead opting for the much less desirable power-filled child.
Power-filled children are immersed in an ocean of coddling and acquiescence by parents who infuse them with the concept that they are the center of the universe, entitled to their every whim and fancy, without any effort on their part. We publicly witness power-filled children everyday, who control their parents with bad behavior, temper tantrums and abusive language. But there has never been a more public example, en masse, of power-filled children than the Occupy Wall St. movement. Thousands of young adults throwing a collective temper tantrum to secure that which they did not earn.
The same sort of arrogant selfish entitlement resident in the Occupy movement, can be witnessed every day in many homes in America where children are given control of family life. It begins almost from birth, when well meaning parents allow a child's toys to occupy common family space such as living rooms, kitchens, and even the parents bedroom. The young child learns that the entire family home is his domain instead of having a designated area for his things in a home that is governed by his parents. This ceding of the parents' governance to the child fills them with power that they do not have the wisdom or understanding to possess.
Our popular culture has contributed to the raising of power-filled children by placing parents in a subservient role to their children in television shows, commercials, and other such drivel for public consumption. The power-filled culture teaches that the modern parent, first and foremost, is suppose to be a friend, not an authority figure, to their children. So the power-filled child is rewarded without first meeting any expectations. Character-building concepts such as delayed gratification, earned success, and determination are absent from the power-filled child. He grows into an adult who feels entitled to have someone else fill his sails and navigate the choppy seas of life for him.
The Left of course has encouraged the raising of power-filled children because it breeds an army of adults whose daily bread must come from the efforts of others, filtered through a government bureaucracy that they control. One of the biggest enemies of Leftists are the strong-willed. They not only have very little need for government largess, but generally think for themselves and are not susceptible to the lies, half-truths, and drivel that spews from the mouths of Leftist leaders. So, the most valuable gift that a parent can give a child is to take away his power and replace it with a strong will.
Power-filled children are immersed in an ocean of coddling and acquiescence by parents who infuse them with the concept that they are the center of the universe, entitled to their every whim and fancy, without any effort on their part. We publicly witness power-filled children everyday, who control their parents with bad behavior, temper tantrums and abusive language. But there has never been a more public example, en masse, of power-filled children than the Occupy Wall St. movement. Thousands of young adults throwing a collective temper tantrum to secure that which they did not earn.
The same sort of arrogant selfish entitlement resident in the Occupy movement, can be witnessed every day in many homes in America where children are given control of family life. It begins almost from birth, when well meaning parents allow a child's toys to occupy common family space such as living rooms, kitchens, and even the parents bedroom. The young child learns that the entire family home is his domain instead of having a designated area for his things in a home that is governed by his parents. This ceding of the parents' governance to the child fills them with power that they do not have the wisdom or understanding to possess.
Our popular culture has contributed to the raising of power-filled children by placing parents in a subservient role to their children in television shows, commercials, and other such drivel for public consumption. The power-filled culture teaches that the modern parent, first and foremost, is suppose to be a friend, not an authority figure, to their children. So the power-filled child is rewarded without first meeting any expectations. Character-building concepts such as delayed gratification, earned success, and determination are absent from the power-filled child. He grows into an adult who feels entitled to have someone else fill his sails and navigate the choppy seas of life for him.
The Left of course has encouraged the raising of power-filled children because it breeds an army of adults whose daily bread must come from the efforts of others, filtered through a government bureaucracy that they control. One of the biggest enemies of Leftists are the strong-willed. They not only have very little need for government largess, but generally think for themselves and are not susceptible to the lies, half-truths, and drivel that spews from the mouths of Leftist leaders. So, the most valuable gift that a parent can give a child is to take away his power and replace it with a strong will.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
The Unconstitutional Nature of Government Immunity
The state of Ohio where I reside, a few years ago made it illegal for persons to smoke in public, even in the state's thousands of bars. But walk into most any of those same bars and one will immediately notice a sixty inch or larger flat screen television promoting the practice of gambling through the state-sponsored Keno cabal. One can sit at the bar, drink and gamble, but do not dare smoke a cigarette or cigar.
I have often wondered how the state of Ohio determined that smoking in bars was more detrimental to society than encouraging folks to spend hundreds of dollars engaged in the act of gambling, which use to be illegal for the bars themselves to promote through tip boards, poker, and other such games of chance. And while smoking has health risks for about a third of those who partake of that habit, the gambling addiction ruins millions more lives through bankruptcy, loss of property, and criminal activity in support of the habit.
State-sponsored gambling is exemplary of government's ability to engage in activities that would send the average person to prison. Other examples are monetizing debt (The Federal Reserve's purchase of treasury bonds with dollars created out of thin air), Ponzi scheme (social security), and violations of the RICO act (pretty much anything the Obama administration has implemented over the last five years). I could not, for instance, require bond holders of a private corporation's debt to sell that debt for five cents on the dollar, then give the equity represented by that debt to my friends free of charge. I would go to prison. But that is exactly what the Obama administration did with General Motors bonds, and this thievery was hailed by those on the Left as a crowning achievement, right up there with killing Osama Bin Laden.
Today's government, and the ruling class that populates it, have given themselves immunity from the very law that they are charged with upholding. But this is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. In fact, James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Papers #57 made the following statement in reference to Congress, "...they can make no law which will not have its full operation on them and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society." How far from that guiding principle upon which our great nation was founded we have strayed, from the federal level all the way down to the cities in which we reside.
I have often wondered how the state of Ohio determined that smoking in bars was more detrimental to society than encouraging folks to spend hundreds of dollars engaged in the act of gambling, which use to be illegal for the bars themselves to promote through tip boards, poker, and other such games of chance. And while smoking has health risks for about a third of those who partake of that habit, the gambling addiction ruins millions more lives through bankruptcy, loss of property, and criminal activity in support of the habit.
State-sponsored gambling is exemplary of government's ability to engage in activities that would send the average person to prison. Other examples are monetizing debt (The Federal Reserve's purchase of treasury bonds with dollars created out of thin air), Ponzi scheme (social security), and violations of the RICO act (pretty much anything the Obama administration has implemented over the last five years). I could not, for instance, require bond holders of a private corporation's debt to sell that debt for five cents on the dollar, then give the equity represented by that debt to my friends free of charge. I would go to prison. But that is exactly what the Obama administration did with General Motors bonds, and this thievery was hailed by those on the Left as a crowning achievement, right up there with killing Osama Bin Laden.
Today's government, and the ruling class that populates it, have given themselves immunity from the very law that they are charged with upholding. But this is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. In fact, James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Papers #57 made the following statement in reference to Congress, "...they can make no law which will not have its full operation on them and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society." How far from that guiding principle upon which our great nation was founded we have strayed, from the federal level all the way down to the cities in which we reside.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Labor Force Participation Paints Bleak Economic Picture
Yesterday, the weekly claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a multi-year low, or at least that is what the Obama administration would have anyone believe who still has even a modicum of trust in the juked statistics coming from the Executive branch. While the administration crowed about the questionable data being evidence that this flaccid economy is miraculously showing signs of improvement, the Labor Force Participation Rate is at a 35 year low. An improving job market can not co-exist with a falling Labor Force Participation Rate, no matter who is in the White House.
The 63.2 percent Labor Force Participation Rate is not only the lowest since 1978, the height of another Democrat president's rein by the name of Jimmy Carter, it is illustrative of the disconnect that exists between reality and the Obama administration's economic data that they spew on a regular basis from the depths of the White House bowels. Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard, has recently illustrated one such data point manipulation. Mr. Hayes has accurately stated that if the Obama administration used the same formula to calculate the unemployment rate as every prior administration, the unemployment rate would stand at a staggering 15%.
But back to the Labor Force Participation Rate, which was approximately 66% or above the entire 8 years of the George W. Bush administration, and when Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. The current president holds the dubious distinction of presiding over the largest drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate in any five year period in this country's post-World War II history. This means that when Barack Obama was droning on incessantly in his inaugural speech on January 20, 2009 and promised to put America back to work, there were 8 million more persons working then that are not working now.
It is important to note that defenders of the President's economic policy point to the plummeting Labor Force Participation Rate as a function of baby boomers retiring. But if the jobs that these retirees held are also retiring, and not being filled by younger workers, the job market is indeed bleak and desperate. If participation in the labor force continues to fall in conjunction with the mass retirement of baby boomers, all being supported by tax payer-funded social security, remaining workers in the labor force will necessarily have to cede a higher percentage of their incomes to taxes. This, of course, will mean less money being spent in the private economy and more money being grafted by big government.
The shrinking number of persons participating in the labor force is planned economic devastation resulting in more dependence on government, and those who control it. The Obamaites' political fortunes are fed by the economic misery of a once free and prosperous nation. I fear that it is becoming more difficult by the day, month, and year to reverse the downward spiral of which the falling Labor Force Participation Rate foretells.
The 63.2 percent Labor Force Participation Rate is not only the lowest since 1978, the height of another Democrat president's rein by the name of Jimmy Carter, it is illustrative of the disconnect that exists between reality and the Obama administration's economic data that they spew on a regular basis from the depths of the White House bowels. Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard, has recently illustrated one such data point manipulation. Mr. Hayes has accurately stated that if the Obama administration used the same formula to calculate the unemployment rate as every prior administration, the unemployment rate would stand at a staggering 15%.
But back to the Labor Force Participation Rate, which was approximately 66% or above the entire 8 years of the George W. Bush administration, and when Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. The current president holds the dubious distinction of presiding over the largest drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate in any five year period in this country's post-World War II history. This means that when Barack Obama was droning on incessantly in his inaugural speech on January 20, 2009 and promised to put America back to work, there were 8 million more persons working then that are not working now.
It is important to note that defenders of the President's economic policy point to the plummeting Labor Force Participation Rate as a function of baby boomers retiring. But if the jobs that these retirees held are also retiring, and not being filled by younger workers, the job market is indeed bleak and desperate. If participation in the labor force continues to fall in conjunction with the mass retirement of baby boomers, all being supported by tax payer-funded social security, remaining workers in the labor force will necessarily have to cede a higher percentage of their incomes to taxes. This, of course, will mean less money being spent in the private economy and more money being grafted by big government.
The shrinking number of persons participating in the labor force is planned economic devastation resulting in more dependence on government, and those who control it. The Obamaites' political fortunes are fed by the economic misery of a once free and prosperous nation. I fear that it is becoming more difficult by the day, month, and year to reverse the downward spiral of which the falling Labor Force Participation Rate foretells.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
The Media's Attempt To Spin Jang Execution To Obama's Advantage
Recently, the current pot-bellied dictator of North Korea and the world's creepiest Dennis Rodman fan, Kim Jong-un, executed his uncle, Jang Song-thaek. Jang was North Korea's Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission, a position considered to be second to the Supreme Leader himself. Jang was also married to Kim Jong-Il's only sister, making him Kim Jong-un's uncle. He also was rumored to have been in control of North Korea during the former leader's illness and death several years ago.
Jang Song-thaek was charged with mentoring the young Kim Jong-un a few years back by his brother in-law, Kim Jong-il, then Supreme Leader of North Korea. It is a common occurrence for the mentor to be executed by his protégé sometime after he has taken the reins of power, for fear of being challenged by the powerful mentor. Of course the official charges against Jang read somewhat like a recitation of North Korean law, Jang having been accused of everything from political corruption to pornography.
Reading the main stream media's analysis of the execution, one would think this was the first time that a dictator in North Korea, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, executed members of his government who they perceived to be too powerful. The dolts in the media even quoted North Korean "experts" who confirmed that Kim Jong-un was an anomaly when it came to any lineage of lunatic leaders, beginning with his grand father Kim Il-sung and being passed to him by his father Kim Jong-Il. But the truth is that both Kim's father and grand father did their share of purging during their tenures in power.
The reason that the media has gotten it so wrong is partly their disinterest in and incompetence for anything approaching journalism, and partly they consider it to be their divine directive to make President Obama look less feckless with foreign policy than he is. The media has deliberately tried to characterize Kim Jong-un as so much more irrational and off the world leader reservation than was his father, who of course was in power mostly during the Bush years. The media's narrative on North Korea seems to be that no one, not even the Great Obaminator, could reason with a man so unreasonable as Kim Jong-un, who would execute his own uncle and mentor. Therefore excusing Barack Obama for actually ignoring the growing threat to the region posed by Kim Jong-un.
I am certainly not excusing the mentally ill Kim Jong-un, but nor should the United States be using the recent execution of his uncle to excuse the incompetence and buffoonish foreign policy of our own "Supreme Leader." It may be unfair to compare Barrack Obama to Kim Jong-un, after all, our President has not executed any of his family members or administration officials, only common sense, decency, and a cogent foreign policy.
Jang Song-thaek was charged with mentoring the young Kim Jong-un a few years back by his brother in-law, Kim Jong-il, then Supreme Leader of North Korea. It is a common occurrence for the mentor to be executed by his protégé sometime after he has taken the reins of power, for fear of being challenged by the powerful mentor. Of course the official charges against Jang read somewhat like a recitation of North Korean law, Jang having been accused of everything from political corruption to pornography.
Reading the main stream media's analysis of the execution, one would think this was the first time that a dictator in North Korea, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, executed members of his government who they perceived to be too powerful. The dolts in the media even quoted North Korean "experts" who confirmed that Kim Jong-un was an anomaly when it came to any lineage of lunatic leaders, beginning with his grand father Kim Il-sung and being passed to him by his father Kim Jong-Il. But the truth is that both Kim's father and grand father did their share of purging during their tenures in power.
The reason that the media has gotten it so wrong is partly their disinterest in and incompetence for anything approaching journalism, and partly they consider it to be their divine directive to make President Obama look less feckless with foreign policy than he is. The media has deliberately tried to characterize Kim Jong-un as so much more irrational and off the world leader reservation than was his father, who of course was in power mostly during the Bush years. The media's narrative on North Korea seems to be that no one, not even the Great Obaminator, could reason with a man so unreasonable as Kim Jong-un, who would execute his own uncle and mentor. Therefore excusing Barack Obama for actually ignoring the growing threat to the region posed by Kim Jong-un.
I am certainly not excusing the mentally ill Kim Jong-un, but nor should the United States be using the recent execution of his uncle to excuse the incompetence and buffoonish foreign policy of our own "Supreme Leader." It may be unfair to compare Barrack Obama to Kim Jong-un, after all, our President has not executed any of his family members or administration officials, only common sense, decency, and a cogent foreign policy.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
The Lefts Redefining Of America
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America." This often repeated quote, by those on the Right anyway, from President Obama prior to winning the 2008 presidential election, could serve as the platform of the modern Democrat party and the Leftist movement in this country. But the Left has not so much transformed America as it has redefined the lexicon of our public debate on the important issues of the day. It is this redefining that is the linchpin of the Lefts effort to subdue the spirit of liberty in a free people and to dismantle the government that was established to protect and promote that spirit.
The Left has redefined hate to mean any position taken that is in conflict with the politically correct, albeit factually lacking narrative on any subject that they themselves believe, or want to make others believe for their own political advantage. They have redefined racism to mean any statement of fact that acknowledges a truth about, or suggests an expectation of, any minority that is stabled in the barn of Leftist victim hood. They have redefined misogyny to mean anyone who has values that are not congruent with modern feminism.
The Left has redefined marriage away from the thousands of years of human history that proves traditional marriage to be the best way in which to raise children as responsible, contributing members of a culture, to any relationship whose participants say they love each other. They have redefined rights to mean any commodity that they can convince a segment of the population is their entitlement to have the United States taxpayer provide them through the bureaucracy of the federal government. And they have redefined bigotry to mean any word that flows from the mouth of anyone on the Right, while ignoring the bigoted statements of anyone on the Left.
This redefining of America, mainly through political correctness, has had a devastating effect on the free flow of ideas, especially on college campuses and in Washington D.C. The Founders knew that if the free flow of ideas was restricted in anyway, the storm clouds of tyranny and oppression would obscure the brightly burning sun of liberty. It was to protect free speech, more than for any other reason, that the United States Constitution has as its first amendment language to protect any man's ability to express his political ideas, and for those who may disagree to vigorously debate and challenge them with opposing ideas.
The way in which the Left has redefined America has allowed them to advance their ideas, not based on intellectual merit, but solely on intimidating any opposition away from even participating in debate. Any expectations of those on government assistance has become bigotry, expecting women to pay for their own birth control has become misogyny, and allowing persons to keep the fruits of their labor has become greed. Any society that allows itself to be defined in this manner has left behind the sunlight of freedom and liberty and has entered the dark forest of oppression and tyranny.
The Left has redefined hate to mean any position taken that is in conflict with the politically correct, albeit factually lacking narrative on any subject that they themselves believe, or want to make others believe for their own political advantage. They have redefined racism to mean any statement of fact that acknowledges a truth about, or suggests an expectation of, any minority that is stabled in the barn of Leftist victim hood. They have redefined misogyny to mean anyone who has values that are not congruent with modern feminism.
The Left has redefined marriage away from the thousands of years of human history that proves traditional marriage to be the best way in which to raise children as responsible, contributing members of a culture, to any relationship whose participants say they love each other. They have redefined rights to mean any commodity that they can convince a segment of the population is their entitlement to have the United States taxpayer provide them through the bureaucracy of the federal government. And they have redefined bigotry to mean any word that flows from the mouth of anyone on the Right, while ignoring the bigoted statements of anyone on the Left.
This redefining of America, mainly through political correctness, has had a devastating effect on the free flow of ideas, especially on college campuses and in Washington D.C. The Founders knew that if the free flow of ideas was restricted in anyway, the storm clouds of tyranny and oppression would obscure the brightly burning sun of liberty. It was to protect free speech, more than for any other reason, that the United States Constitution has as its first amendment language to protect any man's ability to express his political ideas, and for those who may disagree to vigorously debate and challenge them with opposing ideas.
The way in which the Left has redefined America has allowed them to advance their ideas, not based on intellectual merit, but solely on intimidating any opposition away from even participating in debate. Any expectations of those on government assistance has become bigotry, expecting women to pay for their own birth control has become misogyny, and allowing persons to keep the fruits of their labor has become greed. Any society that allows itself to be defined in this manner has left behind the sunlight of freedom and liberty and has entered the dark forest of oppression and tyranny.
Monday, December 23, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)