I’m a simple logical person. You can give me all the passionate arguments in the world over an issue and won’t gain an inch of ground with me because I’ll simply turn around and defeat your passion with logic. The only way to ever defeat me is to present an argument that is even more logical than my own. Trying to convince me that I should surrender my position based on “fairness” is about as useless as me attempting to teach my hound dog geometry
One of the main battle cries of the Left is that we should be taxing the rich more. My simple logical response is, why? Logic states that there should be no direct correlation between a rich person’s wealth and my own. Therefore, as long as we are both contributing an equal percentage back to the collective to maintain common resources both the wealthy person and I should be free to expand our wealth at will. If I desire more wealth then I am free to pursue it in whatever legal manner I can arrive at. I should be able to do so without having any affect on another person’s wealth, or their wealth affecting my pursuit.
What the Left has attempted to do is make a passionate argument instead of a logical one to justify the confiscation of the wealth of others. Numerically speaking it is impossible to justify punitive taxation as a means to balance governmental receipts to current spending levels. You could confiscate 100% of the wealth from those at the top and it wouldn’t begin to cover current demand. The Left already knows this, but rather than curbing demand they are instead attempting to create an argument based on fairness. So here’s my simple logical question to the Left. Can you truly ever define what is fair?
Fairness entails more than just what a person has. It also entails what a person has accomplished. Things like hard work, risk taking, ingenuity, education, experience, and creativity all become factors related to accomplishments. So the question becomes far more complex than one of simple division. If you ask the Left what the definition of “fair” should be you will never get a real answer because the real answer is that “fairness” can be defined in any number of ways. Therefore, there can be no true justification for confiscating the wealth of others based on the concept fairness any more than there is a numerical justification to confiscate wealth as a means to offset excessive spending. In the real world it’s not the wealth of some that should be at issue. It’s excessive benevolent spending in an attempt to create a false equality that is the true issue. In the real world logic wins yet again.