“Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.” – Niccolo Machiavelli
The nature of politics is gross. It has about it the beauty of progress, but within it lies the rot of week-old fish. It is little more than a series of chess moves, with each move designed to advance the player toward the King. The player, in the case of the Washington D.C., is the politician. The King is his opponent. We are the pieces which are unceremoniously sacrificed in pursuit of the end-game.
There has been a lot of talk recently about Thomas Piketty an economist who has the liberal community enamored. In the most basic terms, Piketty believes in a system of taxation that makes our current tax system look like a chump. He is a proponent of higher taxes, and according to The Economist: “He also suggests a punitive 80% tax rate on incomes above $500,000 or so.”
His beliefs are much more complicated than what I have reduced them to, and you can read his book if you’d like a more comprehensive look. But my focus is on a much smaller piece of philosophy, of which Piketty is just the latest advocate. The liberal community is enamored by the idea of wealth distribution. They often like to point out—quite factually—that the wealth gap in the United States is growing. Then they go off the rails. They don’t see what is right in front of them, that crony capitalism, and government interference are the primary causes of wealth disparity. Rather than attack the source of the problems, they create a straw man: the ever ambiguous “rich.”
Democrats have created a false society in which there are three classes of people: the poor, the middle class, and the rich. The middle class aren’t talked about much, other than when it is lamented that they are disappearing. The poor are the downtrodden angels, whose lives are kept in utter misery because of…the rich. The rich, you see, are evil hoarders, who did not earn their money. The rich either inherited their money, stole it by manipulating the system, or acquired it by some other criminal means. The poor are the protagonists of the story, and the rich are the antagonists.
In order to set things right, the Democrats propose taxing the rich at an astronomically higher rate than everyone else. They would then give this money to the poor via social safety nets, and other such programs. The problem I see with their fairy tale is that it assigns value based on wealth. It asks us to believe that simply by virtue of being wealthy, someone is lesser, and that by virtue of being poor, someone is greater. It makes the assumption that the wealthy are not paying their “fair share,” and that the poor deserve more. But what does that mean? What is fair? To the Democrats, fair means equal. Fair means that everyone is the same. This doctrine tells us that wealth isn’t fair, because it makes people unequal. This philosophy also implies that poor Americans deserve more money. Why? Why does having less entitle you to get more? Assigning value based on income doesn’t seem fair to me.
The entire wealth redistribution philosophy is based on air. It has nothing backing it but anger. It’s a philosophy based not in logic, but in greed. It is designed solely to pit one group against another, the result of which is a gain for the Democrats. The Democrats set the poor against the rich, and then tell the poor that if they vote Democrat, they will be rewarded. The Democrats are fighting a battle against the rich to get the votes of the poor. Meanwhile, every Democrat is wealthy; every Democrat politician benefits from crony capitalism. They are hypocritical deceivers.
We cannot perpetuate the idea that wealth is negative. We cannot paint wealthy individuals as the enemy simply because they have money. Moreover, we can’t label the poor as morally deserving because they have less. It’s outrageous. It’s all a game; and guess who gets shafted in the end? We all do! Politicians win, we lose. Game over.
Don’t be a victim of the wealth redistribution monster.