Doesn't
it seem a bit strange that those who advocate a redistribution of
income and wealth are putting a cap on their own financial success?
Have you ever wondered WHY?
Why do some people (generally called liberals) want to forcibly
confiscate income and wealth from those who have more and give it to
those who ostensibly have less? Are they not concerned that they might
end up as one of those who have more?
Have you wondered why some liberals continue to argue that the "rich"
don't pay their "fair share" when the top 20% of taxpayers in terms of
income are paying 56% of the income tax? How much is enough?
Why isn't it abundantly obvious to them that when people are given
enough to survive without working, a lot fewer people will choose to
work, which will reduce the standard of living for all?
Why isn't it equally obvious that when those who have the talent to
produce and manage wealth are punished and their wealth is confiscated,
they will eventually go on strike and will either leave the U.S. or
will simply quit working.
Why do most advocates of the environment object to every non-carbon
based solution like nuclear energy, wind, solar and water generated
energy?
Why are most of the hard left in U.S. politics more determined to push
through a universal health care package than in seriously looking at
the many ways in which the U.S. health care system can be improved?
Why do some people argue for peace at any price -- including their own liberty?
Why
does anyone want to encourage a movement toward a world government that
would be able to dictate how and whether we could protect ourselves
from tyrants in other countries?
Why do so many people continue to believe that the federal government
can solve every kind of problem and prevent every kind of injury when
the government has consistently made things worse after they get
involved?
Why do the liberal leaders seem to believe that we can solve a problem caused by excess debt with more debt?
I've been struggling to find a plausible explanation for these and similar questions.
But then I turned the question around and asked why would anyone
believe that an uncontrolled economy would be the "best" for everyone?
After much reflection, I concluded that the answer lies in a
combination of logic, history and faith.
Yes, I did say "faith".
At some point, even the scientist resorts to a degree of faith
regarding the unknown and unexplained. If nothing else, the scientist
has faith that his discipline will produce the best answers.
The political left argues that the free market system doesn't work and
they point to the recent financial collapse as evidence. The political
right argues that the current system is not a genuine free market and
that the financial debacle was the direct cause of government
interference in the market place. Both clearly
believe in something that has not been proven except by anecdotal evidence through history.
On the subject of faith -- or of a belief that can't be proven -- I
believe there are different segments of the political left that have
different motives.
A
substantial proportion of those who admit that they are liberals and
who support liberal politicians are expressing their faith in the power
of a benevolent government to prevent or cure every form of injury or
abuse. They rarely believe that they might become the future target of
some law or regulation that is designed to protect others by penalizing
them.
A second large segment of those who support a liberal political agenda
are those who are current beneficiaries of the government's
distributions or those who are seeking some form of personal benefit
from a government that can dispense money, power or regulatory control
at will. This group consists of government employees, government
contractors, social security recipients, participants in Medicare or
Medicaid and many others. Some commentators believe we are close to the
"tipping point" where the number of voters who are dependent on federal
largess exceeds those in the private sector.
I believe, after much reflection, that most of the leaders of the
political left are simply using the appeal of redistribution of wealth
as a tool to secure the support of those who have faith in the power
and benevolence of government.
The health care bill is not about improving health care for the greater
good. It is about income redistribution and political control of a very
large part of the U.S. economy.
The cap and trade bill is not about protecting the environment. It is
about obtaining political control of the energy sector of the economy.
The "war on terrorism" is not being fought against those who are the
most flagrant and open advocates of terrorist tactics. It is about
securing control over the movement and communications of the residents
of the U.S.
Why? Perhaps it was Lord Acton who gave us the answer. He said,
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
The leaders of a free and democratic society are not able to rule by
force or threat of force. For those who seek power, a Democratic
Republic is not conducive to their goals. For the political
autocrat, some form of fascist or totalitarian system is needed. Thus,
those who seek absolute power in the U.S. must first destroy the
foundations upon which a Democratic Republic is built.
Vern Jacobs
