Just prior to the American Revolution, the mantra of the day
was against “Taxation without Representation”. This is bad, it set up a system
of de facto slavery in which goods were taken to Britain without the Colonists’
say on what went on. This is unfair to the productive class, and causes
resentment among people. In the case of the American Revolution, it caused a
civil war which ended in the birth of a new nation. In the case of the French
Revolution, it caused the purging of the aristocracy and the dissolution of the
French government, paving the way for Napoleon to take power.
Today, we have the opposite, welfare cases have the vote,
but do not contribute to the society. Since these people make up a good portion
of the population, we have another problem with similar results. This time, it
is “representation without taxation”. This, in my opinion is even worse. Not
only do the productive members of society lose their say in what happens, it
dooms the country to a slow death by socialism. This is causing class warfare,
people segregating into particular groups in this race to become the “most
oppressed”, in order to extract more goods from the general population, and
disincentivizing people from being productive.
There is a parable I sometimes use when discussing
representation to socialists, it goes like this:
A certain man named Fred gets a raise at his job, and so he decides to celebrate by treating his friends to dinner. Fred invites them over and they start driving. Along the way, he suggests taking them to a burger joint. They protest, and demand to be taken to a steak house. Unable to come to an agreement, they decide to vote on it, and majority rules, so they go to the expensive steakhouse. When they get there, they sit down, and Fred’s friends invite the waiting staff (government workers) to come in eat with them. Then, they invite some bums on the street (immigrants) to come in and have the steak dinner, all on Fred’s dime. After additional protests, they vote again, and go ahead and invite the workers and the foreigners to eat steak with him. By this time, Fred is getting furious, so they call him names, and take his wallet. Because they voted on it, this is fine, because majority rules, right?
When putting it on an individual level, of course this
sounds absurd. Fred’s friends have no moral right to his money, whether they
vote on it or not. We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable
rights, among these are life, liberty, and property. To take these away from
someone without just cause is thievery. This was outlined in the US Declaration
of Independence in a preliminary version based on the Virginia Declaration of
Rights drafted by George Mason as follows:
THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Due to the existence of slavery at the time, the final
wording was changed to “the pursuit of happiness” to allow for this immoral and
hypocritical caveat. If a person is able to vote for the personal acquisition
of another’s wealth, is not that just as immoral as someone providing a job to
someone (picking cotton for instance) but then taking 90% of the wealth?
Slavery is institutionalized thievery, not unlike communism. Socialism is just
a watered down version in which wealth is taken and redistributed in a manner
to provide politicians maximum power through the vote of the flocks of sheeple
out there.
In order to turn this around, to keep the government from
going to the inevitable slide towards communism, representation needs to remain
in the hands of those who are paying the bills. Therefore, I propose looking at
a person’s tax and the welfare benefits he or she receives. If their taxes are
more than their welfare benefits, they have the right to vote.
If we were to go to this system, people would still be
charitable, but welfare benefits would decrease. This would slow the increase
in debt, and reverse the march toward communism. Eventually as debt is paid
off, we would have a more prosperous nation overall.
The welfare cases, of course would be unhappy from the
changes. Social security pensioners would be unhappy to lose the vote, but I
guarantee you they would be happier with losing the vote than they would be
with a societal collapse and reset, which appears we are headed for unless we
have a major change in our current course.
You may think people would eliminate any ability for the
poor to survive, but that is not true. In the absence of forced redistribution
of wealth, people are quite charitable. Until the 1930's welfare was nearly entirely provided
for by private donations. ("Coincidentally", the introduction of the
welfare state came along as the same time of the greatest economic disaster our
nation has ever seen.)
Conclusion
The natural order of things is for those who supply the
goods are the ones in authority. If you are a father with a family to take care
of, you are the one who should be with the authority. If you are the company
owner who makes payroll for the employees, you are the one who should be in
authority, government should not be any different. If you are the one paying
the bills, you should be the one making the decisions. Doing anything different
is allowing others to steal from you, and will eventually lead to the destruction of the entire system.
Comments
Post a Comment