Life Is Not Fair!
Lately I have noticed a trend in our society especially our government and that is that they all want things to be fair. They want to make it so that money is distributed fairly i.e. take from the rich and give to the poor. The problem with this attitude is that life is not fair and our constitution does not guarantee fairness to all people, if you read the Declaration of Independence it states that
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
America provides an opportunity for all citizens to pursue happiness but it is not guaranteed or assured. And if you do achieve success what right do I have to lay claim to any of it. The amazing thing about America's capitalism is that anyone can attain that elusive 1% and make tons of money such as Bill Gates, Glenn Beck, and Mitt Romney. These people had an idea and turned it into money and they should be allowed to keep that money. I certainly love what I do but know that I will never become wealthy teaching high school History to kids in custody, unless I have an idea that rivals the Pet Rock, and that is my choice. However, society seems to feel that life should be fair and that I should pay for the man who went out and fathered 30 children or provide for those who chose to sleep through school or to not to attend school at all and now have no skills to with which to obtain a job.
President Obama told Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” He is once again forgetting history and that taking from the rich to give to the poor might make a good Disney movie (Robin Hood) but it does not work in real life for the following reasons from Capitalist in Chief
- Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY.
- Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it.
- Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself
- The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class.
- A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich!
- The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love
- High taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties.
- Social programs create more demand and need for those very programs in a self perpetuating cycle because given government handouts, people come to expect and rely on them. And therefore, you can never spend enough, because the more you do, the greater the need to do so becomes.
- Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least.
- A combination of the above points causes a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending that results in a socialist government running out of money and having ‘no choice’ but to perpetuated tax increases to every level of society, rich and poor.
- Socialism causes poverty because it slows economic growth and progress through government waste, taxation on productive economic activity, discouraging innovation and the creation of hurdles for business. In addition, socialism causes poverty because it creates a disincentive to work and act responsibly.
- Socialism causes inequality because much of the money that goes to the government ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, it’s easier for wealthy individuals to avoid taxes, and it creates hurdles for business that the wealthy find easier to overcome. Socialism is a way for the rich to shut the door behind them, preventing those who are on their way up from reaching their destination.
- Liberalism tends to liken inequality to injustice, therefore, just by using the standards set by liberal thinking, socialism causes injustice because of the inequality it promotes. But more directly, socialist policies (wealth redistribution, social programs, and regulation) necessitate a larger, more powerful, more meddling, government that becomes a powerful tool for the wealthy, politically connected, and bureaucrats on “power trips” to take advantage of the rest of society.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is capitalism which makes life better for everyone. As Joseph Schumpeter put it in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, capitalism "progressively raises the standard of life of the masses....One problem after another of the supply of commodities to the masses has been successfully solved by being brought within the reach of the methods of capitalist production." Think Steve Jobs and computers in every home. He had an idea working from his garage he was able to build a company that changed the world as we know it. Cell phones, cars, medical advances came about because of capitalism.
I usually equate this issue to grades as that is how my students can relate. If student A works hard, gives up on some social time to make sure that they have a straight A average and student B chooses to party all the time and to not study and gets C's and D's should we average out the grades to make things fair? I am pretty sure that at least student A would not feel that it would be fair to do all the work so that student B can get good grades as well. This analogy might not work for President Obama because he won't release his transcripts so we don't know what his grades are he might like this system as well.
Here is another one that might help do you all remember the story of the "Little Red Hen" she found some seeds and asked "who will help me plant these seeds" and everyone says "not I" so she plants the seeds this goes on with reaping the seeds, grinding the seeds, making the bread until we get to who will help me eat the bread and of course everyone wanted in on that one. No one wanted to do any of the work but they certainly wanted to reap the rewards.
President Obama I have news for you LIFE IS NOT FAIR! If it was you would not have gone to Harvard, married a beautiful woman, had two wonderful daughters, been given the orating skills that you have, and certainly would not have been able to play 100 rounds of golf over the last 4 years at the taxpayers' expense. Wake up and quit trying to destroy America.