For Those of You Opposed to "Spreading the Wealth"...

I have a simple question: How is it different than spreading political power, like is done in republican forms of government? My assertion is that, in fact, it is not. I will elaborate below.

However, let me preface this by saying that I am not "statist;" I am not a typical "liberal" who believes the government should tend to all affairs. Indeed, I feel that federal assistance should be eliminated entirely, and that that burden should shift to the States. I support universal healthcare done correctly -- and it IS possible, as demonstrated in places like Sweden and France; not all single payer systems are poorly implemented like in Britain and Canada -- and basic food supplements. Beyond that, I don't feel that the government should be involved in many other "entitlements" (indeed, I loathe the thought of Social Security and the like).

Now, I return to my original proposition: that social support is no different than enfranchisement in any way other than the nominal.

The basic premise of individuals' arguments who are against equalizing the distribution of wealth is simplistic at its heart: what have the recipients at large of such actions done to deserve funds from the one who is taxed? The answer, of course, is nothing. And what of it? I shall demonstrate how it is absurd to feel angered by this below.

How may an individual of that mindset justify a republican mode of governance? What has he done to deserve to have a voice in his government? Nothing, other than his action of being. After all, it is the politician, not the constituent, who wins elections, accrues allies, and debases enemies. It is the politician who forges bills, negotiates peaces and wars, and guides countries. Yet we believe that he should be in our service. Why? Because we are man and we are selfish.

We believe (until we are comfortable in our positions) that all men are endowed with natural rights, the most important of which being the right to pass a dignified existence. In order to do this, we must take from the powerful and the prosperous and give to ourselves, the less powerful and the less prosperous (in moderation, of course). We ourselves are, by and large, meritless. We have done nothing to deserve representation, other than to take part in being. This being affords us, we believe, the aforementioned natural rights -- which, in essence, are the rights of being selfish. We in our modern society label this form of selfishness as "fairness." In other words, the guarantee (enforced by various charters, and declarations, and other such legally binding documents) that everyone may receive his slice of the proverbial pie.

This whole train of thought may be summed up easily: When the powerful extort the impotent, this is tyranny. When the impotent extort the powerful, this is liberty.

Throughout history, mankind has engaged in a series of societal revolutions, each subsequently distributing more and more levels of equality to the lower echelons of society. In the distant past, as you know, there existed simply no concept of civilization. Man roamed plains, spearing bison, harvesting berries, and smearing cave walls with crude paints. He was dependent upon nature to provide the materials necessary for his well-being. However, nature ignored men, relegated their sustenance to happenstance, and of this men grew weary -- weary of this feeble existence, weary of its cruelties and savageness, of being at the mercy of the earth for their needs. So they said unto themselves, "Why is it that the fruits of nature should belong solely to the earth and we to the whims of the seasons?" Thus agriculture was conceived of. Man, meritless man, took of nature seeds and plants for his own use. He was not deserving of this, for, after all, he did not create the plants himself and his sole claim to them was the simple necessity of his uninterrupted being.

This greatest of human inventions allowed a new hierarchy to emerge: kings and lords, pharaohs and emperors ascended thrones the world over, by way of brute force and cunning and through good fortune, and headed the great civilizations of Babylon, and Egypt, and Sumer, and so on. These heads of nations came to forget the support of their fellow man in the battle against nature. They repressed the bourgeoisie, and of this the bourgeoisie grew weary -- weary of being at the mercy of the dictator for their security and prosperity, weary of the absurdity and the star chambers. So they said unto themselves, "Why is it that the halls of government should belong solely our lords and masters and we to their whims?" Thus the popular revolution was conceived of and enacted in Rome and in Greece and elsewhere. The merchant, the meritless merchant, took of his sovereign the power to rule. He was not deserving of this, for, after all, he had merely deigned himself worthy to govern, and had in no way demonstrated by any act why he was worthy of this, other than his penchant for being.

This new-found enfranchisement (which was lamentably lost for a millennium, and not rediscovered until the Enlightenment) allowed a new hierarchy to emerge: businessmen were bathed in coin and came to enjoy a standard of living not known to even the most privileged of sovereigns in the elder years of the earth. These merchantmen came to forget the support of the peasants and workers in their struggle against tyranny. They ignored the working class, and of this the working class grew weary -- weary of being ridiculed and of being exploited, weary of the dull and hopeless existence their society had relegated to them. So they said unto themselves, "Why is it that that the gilded homes of our lands should be the sole domain of our employers, and we subservient to their whims?" Thus the workers' rights movement was conceived of, and employees throughout the West demanded fairer treatment and liveable wages. The worker, the meritless worker, took of his employer leverage and coin. He was not deserving of this, for, after all, he had not engaged in any new action which proved him to be of any more worth than before his movement, other than his continued being.

This novel prosperity has allowed a new hierarchy to emerge: the worker has grown accustomed to the riches he now enjoys and his memory of his old, disadvantaged past grows distant. He has come to forget the support that the most wretched and destitute of society gave to him in his struggle against the robber baron. He shuns the poor, falling into the covetous practices of his previous oppressor. Of this, the poor are growing weary -- weary of being ignored and excluded, weary of having fallen through the cracks and of being forgotten. So they say unto themselves, "Why is it that we have been left behind and forsaken, to rot and flounder in obscurity? What fools we are, for there are none left to support us!"

So, I ask, what shall become of the poor, the meritless poor?

Are we to deny them the same indulgences, the indulgences of plenty, that we ourselves have extorted from systems past? Are we so self-deceiving that we label our past parasitism as virtuous and their current such as villainous? I should hope not. We are better than that, for we are all men.

 

When an economy is vibrant and robust.. fortunes are made and lost every day.

 

By those in privileged positions, or at least positions privileged enough to be able to make the gamble of risk and reward. The poor cannot do this.

 

Nonsense.. My bro went from making $24k a year (for 20 years) to making $400K a year in less than 15 years.. Its all about ideas, innovation and risk v rewards.

 

It all hinges on jobs.
With the outsourcing, jobs available for the average Joe are becoming more and more scarce.
Taking from the rich to give to the poor might sound nice, but its a bandage, without long term improvement.
Once we make jobs available, an instill a sense of pride for a job well done, such that people are more willing to take care of themselves (yes, those who can), everyone will be better off, envy will disappear, and enough funds will be available for those who can't make due, for whatever reason.
Sadly, envy and open hands seem to be the latest past time sport, and eventually, funds will dry up, and we have the poor next to the poorer.
What then?
Bring jobs back, create more jobs, put people to work.

 

Less than 15 years? How veritably speedy... I wonder how he enjoyed the 15 years spent in poverty? Probably would have enjoyed the occasional helping hand.

Either way, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue isn't whether or not there is wealth/influence/power to be made, but rather if it should be fairly distributed or not.

 

Only for those who want 40 hours a week.. They have to settle for a glass ceiling and being canned at age 43 because of health insurance costs.

 

Is that what your brother did? Or did he look forward, better himself, was ambitious enough to move forward?

 

He hated it.. they were "scraping the butter wrapper".. But, he was canned after 20 years of loyal service to the same company (with a prestigious degree.)

Its not as it once was.. where 30 years of service would get you a gold watch and a pension.

Spreading the wealth is about risk and reward... and innovation.. Remember what Helen Keller said.

 

I'm all in favor of sharing the wealth. I got my share by working. I would suggest you do the same.

 

I did the same. I have zero respect for those who want something handed to them for doing nothing.

 

I know people who are quite proud at how they can "work the system." Getting a job is also the absolute best way to address the so-called "wage gap". As long as there is one deadbeat who refuses to work and is on the dole the liberals will be whining that he doesn't make what Warren Buffett makes and the "wage gap" whining will continue.

 

I'm not sure this is literally true.

And there really are a lot of people that just aren't employable, for one reason or another. Also, there may actually be more people than jobs. There may even be more employable people than jobs.

 

What a narrow-minded viewpoint. People who are in poverty often worker longer, and harder, than any of their sanctimonious suburban counterparts.

Then you have no respect for yourself. What did you do to earn the right to vote?

No one is in favor of giving money to "baby mommas" or abusers of drug and drink or anyone who simply refuses to work.

The notion that "all poor are lazy" is a myth if there ever were one, perpetuated so as to nix popular sentiment heading the way of the underprivileged.

Further rubbish. I know no one who wants to support freeloaders.

 

I'm not opposed at all to "spreading the wealth." I'm just to it being spread by governmental force or any force at all.

 

But they don't work smarter. Often they don't work regularly (have good working habits).

For example, my mom used to hire a handyman to fix things around the house, do small projects, etc. He did great work, and it was fast and cheap. A rare combination. A lot of times she would set up a time for him to come over to do a job. About a quarter of the time, he wouldn't show. He'd call and say he had gotten drunk the night before, and didn't feel like working. With his skills, he could have easily been raking in a lot of money as a handyman. He didn't. He just did enough to survive. He was poor because of his choices.

I would never say the poor are lazy. I would say that the poor are often poor due to their own decisions. Not often that you see a middle class person with "spinners" on their wheels, for example.

 

Then how do you except it to be spread? Very rarely are the well-off perpetually benevolent to those beneath them. Do you think America's corporate CEOs are all going to come together and decide to fund a single payer system or food stamps? How laughable.

 

That would end property rights, wouldn't it?

 

Again, nonsense. They often work such long hours and such difficult work that they cannot possibly begin to consider planning a different MO, let alone executing it. Read Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London for an idea of this.

Again, nonsense. But even still, so what if they are? Are you saying that because they are not as keen or cunning as the average man they do not deserve to pass a dignified existence with access to adequate health care?

BTW, for the umpteenth time, no one supports financing "spinners" or what have you. You're painting all the poor with the same brush. I'm speaking of the people who are legitimately down and out, hardworking, honest people. They do exist, even though you seem to characterize every disadvanted individual as a black welfare queen.

 

I believe those are meant to be displays of financial success, actually. Like ... power ties? Or golfing? I'm trying to think of cross-cultural equivalents.

 

TL;DR

My problem with the "spread the wealth" mentality is that it's constantly something being pushed on successful people who just want to be left alone rather than simply embraced and practiced by the people who truly believe in it. If you really believe that spreading the wealth is a good idea, start by giving your own (*)(*)(*)(*) away. Because I guarantee you, no matter how much or how little you have, somebody else in America has less. And if that really bothers you as much as you say it does, GIVE THEM SOMETHING! OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET! Because by your own philosophy, if you are not readily giving to the needy and poor on your own regardless of what other people are doing, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. You are no better than all those evil rich people.

This is why I don't believe most wealth redistribution fanatics really care about helping the poor. What they really want is to be recipients of other people's wealth.

 

I do not know anyone opposed to spreading the wealth, as long as the spread is due to merit and is not the government stealing from one group to give to another in exchange for political power.

 

Well, then you are a libertarian.

 

If the 'impotent' are doing the extorting, they are by definition, not impotent???

 

Businesses only outsource when the employees in the original location cost too much.