So here is one of the new commercials against Mitt Romney. To be honest, I couldn't care less about Big Right-Wing Government Mitt Romney, but I think this ad is a great teachable moment. One of the first claims is that while we peons are srcummaging around looking for pennies on the floor just so we can eat, the rich are living life high on the hog. Therefore the rich are evil. Why? What is the logical correlation. Well, it's the same old haves verses have nots argument. It totally plays on the emotions without a single shred of rational thought.
If we squeezed every penny from the rich and gave it away, would that solve our economic problems? Nope, but you are made to think so.
So the next quick argument is the tax rate. The evil Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do. The ad is so insidious, you are made to feel you actually pay more real taxes than he does, which is absurd. Just look at the number they offer on the screen with rational thinking and you will see Mitt pays millions of dollars in taxes more than the average shlub (all the while Harry Reid says he didn't pay any taxes, which is it?).
Then we are told the rich are going to get even more money from the government because they will pay less in taxes while we pay more. But let's get to the crux of this commercial.
The entire point of the commercial is simple. Hate the rich and tax them more. By doing this, we will all feel better about ourselves. So go ahead. Vote for Obama. Feel better about giving government the power to steal private property from someone else. You'll feel better. But I ask you, will it really make you feel better? Will it really solve those grocery bills? Will your life magically get better because someone else got screwed?
When in your life did allowing someone else to get screwed ever really help you? Unless of course you really believe the government's debt will really get paid down while they transfer the wealth of the rich into your pocket? Living in a dream world will sooner or later come to an end. It did for the Soviets. If we continue to follow this path, it will for us too.
This stems from the Marxian view that wealth is finite and economic conditions are just a matter of dispersment.
ReplyDeleteYet Dispite what we all should know and understand as a natural law of economics, that wealth is created by human action, the liberal sees egalitarianism as a moral function of the planner. Since his incorrect view on wealth is that it is finite, and resources are already at their end stage of production when they are found, they are limited and equality is the only just means of wealth dispersment, the liberal seeks to be the moral God of decision making for this resource allotment.
Yet the truth is that resources are unlimited. The truth is that they are almost never at their end stage of production and only through labor and production stages can they be made into goods that we consume and capital that we use. This is literally infinite as far as scarcity and the economy is concerned. It is true no particular resource is infinite, but through labor all needs can be met in an infinite fashion by innovation and changing resources available.
So wealth is not finite but literally boundless. There is no limit as to what the total wealth can be and therefore any means of egalitarianism is immoral, since it results always in a less total amount of wealth, it be definition reduces the wealth for even those at the receiving end of the master planners.
Regardless is one is a utilitarian or an individualist, egalitarianism is immoral for this simple fact.
Even if one justifies the theft and coercion by his egalitarian views, he still is immoral for this fact of non-finite wealth. The egalitarian punishes those exact people's he swears to "make equal".
He punishes the poor, the hungry, the disadvantaged, the sick, the less talented, the unfortunate. He destins them to an equal share of less. For he fails to see that wealth is created through labor in unlimited fashion, and one can only accumulate more than his personal labor will allow through exchange. And each exchange makes both parties more wealthy. The so called "too rich" can only accumulate this capital by Increasing the utility of others. So by definition the egalitarian contradicts his own morality.
He sees economy as a monopoly game with only the property and paper that is in the box and seeks to make all players win. What he does t realize is that there is no cover to this box in real life. There is no square in real life that once you past go you must then walk through the same property. No, in real life it goes In a straight line where new properties can be bought endlessly.