I saw a news clip where a panel
on MSNBC were baffled as to why anyone would think this a bad idea, and that
there must be some focus group that has indicted that American’s are confused
by this and Candidate Romney is using it to further their confusion. They go on to detail how all government
spending is redistribution in some form so clearly there was not some devious
intent when President Obama said it back in 1998.
I know those well informed and
articulate talking heads will not see my humble views, but I feel compelled to
share them anyway.
Let’s start with a simple
premise… mankind started out equal (and by the way, I am not sure this is even
a good premise). We all lived in caves,
trees, or simple huts. Why is it that
now, all these years later, we aren’t still there and aren’t all equally rich
or poor? Is it all pure environmental
based circumstance, victimization, or perhaps we are not all equal, and
there is an inevitable and unavoidable class structure in the nature of man? I challenge anyone to show me where in
history, or the modern world, this has not been, or is not the case. To idealize the perfect classless society can
be achieved through some grand government design is foolish. This dream will only be realized when all the
humans in it are actually equal in terms of intelligence and independence, and
through some magical formula decide to intertwine their skills and abilities
into an interdependent but universally supported social structure that does not
require a single group of leaders -- perhaps, something akin to the democracy
of ancient Athens.
Throughout history we see
societies rise and fall, but the successful ones share a common trait; there
are always classes within them. The
principle difference is how those class differences were defined and
structured. In many, religion or
religious worship is the class separator.
The priests and some sovereign gained control, and the people were
unified under that government. They maintained control and legitimized the rule
as something sanctioned by God. Egypt is a prime example of how the priests and monarch collaborated to raise
the Pharaoh to god status. Attaining god
status seems to be a good way for a monarch to keep control of the
governed.
In other societies physical
abilities were/are a great class separator.
Sparta in Greek antiquity and the Zulu people are examples of how
societies are separated or built around the physical differences. Today, professional sports seem to be
creating a unique class within our own society.
We see the athletes idolized and worshipped for their physical talents
to a point we are willing to pay them millions and millions of dollars to perform
in our great arenas.
If I am to believe my teachers,
America was founded on a principle that all men were created with certain
unalienable rights, it was the government’s job to protect them, but it was the
individual’s right to succeed and prosper based on their unique ability. Of course if the individual has a right to
succeed, it must also hold true that there is an equal right to fail. That last sentence is critical to
understanding why I think redistribution as a government policy is fatally
flawed and can only lead to a society that will collapse on itself.
Historically, we have taken
pride in the fact what separates us from the rest of the world was not that we
were a classless society, but our classes were based on individual achievement,
and not some preordained position we were born to. I will grant that there are a few, for
example the Vanderbilt’s and Rockefeller’s, whose founders achieved such vast
wealth that the family grew and prospered as perhaps a unique class, but
historically if a founder achieves great success we see succeeding generations
squander it until they are little more than a recognized name. For example, Joseph Kennedy made a fortune as
a bootlegger, his son’s rose to great political power, but the next generation?
When we take away the incentives
for great achievement, and through the government, distribute them to those who have neither the ability nor desire to achieve success on their own, do we
create a stronger society? I am hard
pressed to find a successful model in history that suggests it does, but I am
certainly open to someone showing me how this would all work.
1 comment:
"When we take away the incentives for great achievement, and through the government, distribute them to those who have neither the ability nor desire to achieve success on their own, do we create a stronger society?"
Of course not. But a particular political class creates a structure that is beneficial to their own interests and certain other people receive (or think they receive) a moral benefit from "helping" the "poor." I know many from college, family and church who are taken in by this kind of thinking. To criticize it is to be morally suspect.
Post a Comment