browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

Th Hypocrisy of Redistribution

Posted by on October 22, 2012
Share via email
If I were to show up at your house and take your car, you would most likely call the cops and have me arrested for theft.  But what if your car was nicer than mine and I needed a reliable car more than you?  Why shouldn’t I have a right to it?  The answer is of course that it’s your property.  You earned it and I don’t have a right to arbitrarily confiscate your rightful property just because I feel I could put it to better use than you.  Obama said in the last debate that he thinks it makes sense for those who have more to pay more since they can afford it.  What he’s really saying is that it is perfectly fine for him to apply some arbitrary justification for confiscating the rightful property of others simply because he thinks he can use it for a better purpose than the true owner.  So what’s the real difference logically between what Obama is suggesting and me showing up at your house looking for the keys to your car? The truth is that 100% of whatever someone earns, as long as it was earned legally, is initially and rightfully theirs regardless of how big that amount is.  We allow the government to confiscate a portion of what we earn based on the concept of supplying the government with the means necessary to fulfill its Constitutional obligations.  However, this is only acceptable for as long as the government fully justifies what it takes and uses that money wisely.  Conversely, the Left likes to pretend that everything belongs first and foremost to the government and we should only be allowed to keep what they allow us to.  It’s why I cringe anytime I hear someone say that tax cuts cause deficits.  That statement implies that the money belongs first to the government.  It’s the equivalent to saying that credit card limits cause debt.  The only thing that causes deficits and debt is spending, period!  Arbitrarily confiscating the rightful belongings of someone under the auspice of “fairness” or as some sort of penalty against success would be better defined as pure theft.  Therefore, those who cheer on such actions are nothing more than thieves. There is a great hypocrisy on the Left whenever they preach the gospel of redistribution.  After all, when was the last time you heard someone preaching that sermon who would end up being confiscated from that actually meant it?  Yes, I realize that Warren Buffett preaches such a message, but even he doesn’t practice what he preaches.  Under the current tax code he is still in arrears to the government for over $1 Billion, so why would anyone actually believe that his intent would be to pay more under an even higher standard?  I’m still waiting for all those wealthy famous people who think like Warren Buffett to actually write a big fat check to Uncle Sam for all their excesses.  They can preach all they want, but actions speak louder than words. The truth is that to the Left redistribution isn’t about “fairness”.  Redistribution is more like a blood sport where everyone roots to see the wealthy crash and burn.  Redistribution isn’t about lifting poor people up.  It’s about tearing wealthy people down.  After all, what does Bill Gates being rich have to do with you being poor other than envy?  In the last debate Obama unveiled his true self.  Numerically speaking even Obama admits that taking everything from the wealthy wouldn’t make much of a dent in real poverty, yet he wants to do it anyway.  For those that wish to cheer him on, my response is a simple one.  If you truly believe that redistribution is the answer, then send me your car.
Share via email

Comments are closed.