Redistribution as Slavery

[Wehrwolfen]

Redistribution as Slavery​

By Dean Kalahar
December 18, 2012

The idea that we should take from those who have and give to those who don't is viewed as proper and just among liberals. In fact, if you do not subscribe to redistribution ideology, you are attacked as being greedy at best and racist at worst. The problem is that income redistribution in practice promotes one of the same moral injustices found under slavery.

As Thomas Sowell put it: "Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state."

If morality is defined by private property, meaning that a person has a right, based on natural law, to their person and their possessions, and if property is generated by the productive and wealth creating behavior of a person's labor, then it follows that it is an infringement on an individual's rights to use any force (murder, theft, rape, etc) to injure or take away one's property. Using the productivity of another for one's personal gain is immoral.

We can then extrapolate from this premise. If taking the productive output of a slave and using it for another's personal gain is immoral; then taking the productive output of any worker and using it for another's gain is also immoral, no matter what race, color, gender, or socio-economic status the producer happens to be.

Logic leads us to one conclusion. A modern form of slavery has been embedded within the welfare state. And no matter how you slice it, property theft to promote a false ideology of "fairness" or advance a twisted form of "compassion" to gain power is abhorrent. It does not matter how many ribbons and bows decorate the rhetoric of "Robin Hood" redistribution, the final analysis is the promotion of servitude.

Redistributive ideology is not about a safety net for the truly needy or the necessity of government to tax in order to perform its proper functions of protecting people, property, and enforcing the rule of law. President Obama may call redistributive efforts "economic justice," or "economic rights," but in the end, using the power of the state to confiscate property is as immoral as taking the wealth created by a slave to benefit the slave owner.

Those on the left will look you straight in the eye and profess they defend liberty and property; but one need only to read the words of the president in regards to his definition of "social justice."

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

"I actually believe in redistribution"

"Spreading the wealth around is good."

'Bring about significant re-distributional change"

"Actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change"

"I do not believe that those two things -- fair distribution and economic growth -- are mutually exclusive"

"I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts"

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

"I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

And of course the classic lines "You didn't build that" and "those who do not pay their fair share" underline the president's belief that private property is available to be confiscated while ignoring the unalienable rights defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Articles: Redistribution as Slavery

 

[Duped]

So the case is that liberals are a bunch of thieving assholes - I concur

 

[BlindBoo]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

 

[tooAlive]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

Unless you live in a totalitarian dictatorship and you are taxed at gunpoint.

Then yes, it could be considered slavery.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

 

[BlindBoo]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little bit.

 

[Koios]

Redistribution as Slavery​

By Dean Kalahar
December 18, 2012

The idea that we should take from those who have and give to those who don't is viewed as proper and just among liberals. In fact, if you do not subscribe to redistribution ideology, you are attacked as being greedy at best and racist at worst. The problem is that income redistribution in practice promotes one of the same moral injustices found under slavery.

As Thomas Sowell put it: "Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state."

If morality is defined by private property, meaning that a person has a right, based on natural law, to their person and their possessions, and if property is generated by the productive and wealth creating behavior of a person's labor, then it follows that it is an infringement on an individual's rights to use any force (murder, theft, rape, etc) to injure or take away one's property. Using the productivity of another for one's personal gain is immoral.

We can then extrapolate from this premise. If taking the productive output of a slave and using it for another's personal gain is immoral; then taking the productive output of any worker and using it for another's gain is also immoral, no matter what race, color, gender, or socio-economic status the producer happens to be.

Logic leads us to one conclusion. A modern form of slavery has been embedded within the welfare state. And no matter how you slice it, property theft to promote a false ideology of "fairness" or advance a twisted form of "compassion" to gain power is abhorrent. It does not matter how many ribbons and bows decorate the rhetoric of "Robin Hood" redistribution, the final analysis is the promotion of servitude.

Redistributive ideology is not about a safety net for the truly needy or the necessity of government to tax in order to perform its proper functions of protecting people, property, and enforcing the rule of law. President Obama may call redistributive efforts "economic justice," or "economic rights," but in the end, using the power of the state to confiscate property is as immoral as taking the wealth created by a slave to benefit the slave owner.

Those on the left will look you straight in the eye and profess they defend liberty and property; but one need only to read the words of the president in regards to his definition of "social justice."

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

"I actually believe in redistribution"

"Spreading the wealth around is good."

'Bring about significant re-distributional change"

"Actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change"

"I do not believe that those two things -- fair distribution and economic growth -- are mutually exclusive"

"I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts"

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

"I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

And of course the classic lines "You didn't build that" and "those who do not pay their fair share" underline the president's belief that private property is available to be confiscated while ignoring the unalienable rights defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Articles: Redistribution as Slavery

What a fucking dweeb. This guy is a teacher in Sarasota, FL of high school social studies and who is obviously drunk on Righty koolaid, and yet he bills himself as "teaches economics and psychology..." when trying to sell his books to other retards drinking the same fucking koolaid.

I'm rolling

 

[Dick Tuck]

Maybe we should enter that part of the Communist Manifesto into our Constitution, that guarantees everyone a job. The author of this article is a fucking fruit cake. Society needs cash to function. Our taxation of income is based on those with the most disposable income are taxed at higher rates. Nothing is unfair about that. It's not like the good old days where they took some part of the crops of their poor to pay for government.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little bit.

Tell that to Sandra Fluke. A college student can't afford to pay for birth control so lets make it a health issue? If you don't agree, then you must be attacking women's rights. What about if I decide I want the government to pay for my gym membership because I desire to live a healthier lifestyle? Since I am a male, does that constitute a war on men? Where do you want the "freebees", that a more responsible individual must pay for, end?

As far as a financial safety net..... you never plan by setting aside funds while the economy is good for a rainy day? Homeowners in the past did the "responsible" thing, and downsized to a smaller home they can afford. They educate themselves and discover if they are signing a low FIXED income loan or an Adjustable Rate loan, BEFORE they sign on with the bank lender. So the fact that you are irresponsible, I should step in for your poor financial spending habits?

Also with all the government programs that the Democrats make the claim actually "help" the poor.... can you give me a statistic (just one), that shows how many have actually benefited and moved beyond government assistance, to actually becoming responsible productive citizens with their own job and contributing back to the Federal Government that helped them.... through taxes?

 

[BlindBoo]

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little bit.

Tell that to Sandra Fluke. A college student can't afford to pay for birth control so lets make it a health issue? If you don't agree, then you must be attacking women's rights. What about if I decide I want the government to pay for my gym membership because I desire to live a healthier lifestyle? Since I am a male, does that constitute a war on men? Where do you want the "freebees", that a more responsible individual must pay for, end?

As far as a financial safety net..... you never plan by setting aside funds while the economy is good for a rainy day? Homeowners in the past did the "responsible" thing, and downsized to a smaller home they can afford. They educate themselves and discover if they are signing a low FIXED income loan or an Adjustable Rate loan, BEFORE they sign on with the bank lender. So the fact that you are irresponsible, I should step in for your poor financial spending habits?

Also with all the government programs that the Democrats make the claim actually "help" the poor.... can you give me a statistic (just one), that shows how many have actually benefited and moved beyond government assistance, to actually becoming responsible productive citizens with their own job and contributing back to the Federal Government that helped them.... through taxes?

Taxes do not pay for Birth Control, that is included in the health care premiums. If you can get your insurance company to pay for you gym membership more power to ya.

Why do you try to make it personal as if you personally would be coming to the aid of some down on their luck person who needs a handout for what ever reason.

Taxes pay for alot more that government assistance programs.

Not slavery. Not even close to slavery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, let's say we end Medicaid, food stamps, public education for people who can't pay for it, housing subsidies, cash assistance, fuel/energy assistance,

all of it. Period. End it.

Now, you've gotten your wish. Now tell us, how long before America is a better place?

 

[jknowgood]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little

Don't mind helping people down on their luck. It's the cradle to grave welfare reciepients i'm talking about.

 

[BlindBoo]

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little

Don't mind helping people down on their luck. It's the cradle to grave welfare reciepients i'm talking about.

Welfare was reformed in 1996 and a person can only get it for a certain number of years. I think it is six years and I believe they have to get some kind of job training and self help programs.

Next?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little bit.

Tell that to Sandra Fluke. A college student can't afford to pay for birth control so lets make it a health issue? If you don't agree, then you must be attacking women's rights. What about if I decide I want the government to pay for my gym membership because I desire to live a healthier lifestyle? Since I am a male, does that constitute a war on men? Where do you want the "freebees", that a more responsible individual must pay for, end?

As far as a financial safety net..... you never plan by setting aside funds while the economy is good for a rainy day? Homeowners in the past did the "responsible" thing, and downsized to a smaller home they can afford. They educate themselves and discover if they are signing a low FIXED income loan or an Adjustable Rate loan, BEFORE they sign on with the bank lender. So the fact that you are irresponsible, I should step in for your poor financial spending habits?

Also with all the government programs that the Democrats make the claim actually "help" the poor.... can you give me a statistic (just one), that shows how many have actually benefited and moved beyond government assistance, to actually becoming responsible productive citizens with their own job and contributing back to the Federal Government that helped them.... through taxes?

Taxes do not pay for Birth Control, that is included in the health care premiums. If you can get your insurance company to pay for you gym membership more power to ya.

Why do you try to make it personal as if you personally would be coming to the aid of some down on their luck person who needs a handout for what ever reason.

Taxes pay for alot more that government assistance programs.

Not slavery. Not even close to slavery.

Obamacare forces individuals to carry Healthcare and for companies to provide them, the issue of the Health Care law came before the United States Supreme Court and they labeled it as a new government "tax". This means my tax dollars are in fact paying for individuals like Sandra Fluke and her contraceptions.

What's wrong with accepting some financial personal responsibility, working hard and moving into a home you can afford (even if that means to downsize)? People can apply for a government "handout", but it's never meant as a long term solution when they are physically capable to find employment. Where is the incentive to work, if individuals develop a laxidasical lazy approach knowing they have another government taxpayer check arriving in the mail for them to cash? When you depend upon the government to provide for your needs, you become enslaved to that form of government.

Still waiting on that statistic, on how many poor Americans have actually moved on from Federal Government assistance programs to become "working" productive members of society. Moving beyond their poverty stricken upbringings to a more successful life, where they can then contribute their fair share of taxes to help pay for those very programs they benefitted from. Any stats at all?

 

[Darkwind]

Not surprising that the leftists here failed to grasp what was written.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OK, let's say we end Medicaid, food stamps, public education for people who can't pay for it, housing subsidies, cash assistance, fuel/energy assistance,

all of it. Period. End it.

Now, you've gotten your wish. Now tell us, how long before America is a better place?

Our nation has always, from it's founding, provided for an education system for its youth. What our country does not provide for is an economic financial education program in school. We are more concerned with having sex in school than how to handle a credit card, what interest rates can do to your credit, the various types of loans and how they can effect your mortgage, as well as simply how to live WITHIN your means. Instead we live in a society of "gotta have it" and "I want it now" instant gratification. Then when we get into a finacial bind, with the possibility of losing our home, we look to the government to solve all of our problems. We need to stop having the Federal Government interfering into the mishaps and screw-ups, of those who are simply irresponsible with their finances and incapable of educating themselves on loans before they apply for them. People need to actually "learn" from their mistakes, instead of a government that creates a bunch of inablers. However, the apple also doesn't fall far from the tree. Obama is looking to those who are MORE financially responsible with the knowledge of how to successfully handle money, to pay for all the irresponsibility, overspending, and mistakes of the government ..... particularly this administration.

When people learn to set aside for their own retirement, then we don't NEED Social Security - plain and simple. The fact that people are unwilling to go through the hardships to discipline themselves financially, then there will always be a need for "someone else to do it and become the responsible adult". If people never fail and suffer through the financial hardships on their own, then they will never learn and develop the tools necessary to prevent that situation from happening again. Just run and look to the government to solve all my problems.... what a legacy example we have left to our children.

 

[freedombecki]

Wow. Another falsehood. Redistribution through taxation is not a bit like slavery. But of course it's Thomas Sowell who just never gets it right anyway.

Anytime your "lifestyle habits" or dependence is based upon the actions of your Federal Government with the attitude of what it simply can provide for you, the concept of individual liberty, accountability, and responsibility simply doesn't exist. Some would rather dump their problems upon their government, and allow those more responsible to pay for it in the form of "giving just a little bit more" to the IRS (A phrase that's a bit of a joke, as I have yet to see anyone give freely to their government..... least of all a liberal.)

Redistribution of tax funds for whatever purpose, roads, education, police, foriegn interventions, or even, ("gasp", a financial saftey net for poor down on their luck individuals) in simply not like slavery. Not even a little bit.

The "financial net" Nancy Pelosi granted her brother-in-law who owned a chunk of Solyndra was well over half a billion dollars, and a year later after getting it, Solyndra locked out 1100 employees. When the books were reviewed, it was a bankrupt business to start out with, but President Obama used the loan as a photo op for Green voters' block of votes, called the US Treasury with a hurry up or else order as soon as he heard they were on the rocks. Instead of using the half a billion on getting competitive in the world market, they used the money to pay rich people off. Rich people who were campaign supporters of Democrats.

The Democrats are in charge of all that money hardworking Americans contribute in taxes, and they squander it on Democrat rich supporters when their relatives and supporters get in trouble.

Blind Boo, you are well-named. You're either blind to what the Democrats are all about--achieve wealth by taking other's tax money and using it as a golden parachute for the rich among Democrats, while firing the 1100 regular Solyndra emplyees with no notice while insiders made off like bandits with half a billion dollars of Congressionally-sanctioned 100% guarantee loans.

Open your eyes. America is not a pretty picture right now, and the Democrats in charge are grabbing, rooting, and growling "bad Republicans" while idiots believe their shit rather than looking at their get-rich-off-the-stupid schemas.

 

[freedombecki]

OK, let's say we end Medicaid, food stamps, public education for people who can't pay for it, housing subsidies, cash assistance, fuel/energy assistance,

all of it. Period. End it.

Now, you've gotten your wish. Now tell us, how long before America is a better place?

Mexico will have to figure out its own solutions instead of decades of lining up expensive hardened prisoners on their northern border with the US and tell them they will shoot them if they ever come back.

Idiot.

 

[BlindBoo]

Tell that to Sandra Fluke. A college student can't afford to pay for birth control so lets make it a health issue? If you don't agree, then you must be attacking women's rights. What about if I decide I want the government to pay for my gym membership because I desire to live a healthier lifestyle? Since I am a male, does that constitute a war on men? Where do you want the "freebees", that a more responsible individual must pay for, end?

As far as a financial safety net..... you never plan by setting aside funds while the economy is good for a rainy day? Homeowners in the past did the "responsible" thing, and downsized to a smaller home they can afford. They educate themselves and discover if they are signing a low FIXED income loan or an Adjustable Rate loan, BEFORE they sign on with the bank lender. So the fact that you are irresponsible, I should step in for your poor financial spending habits?

Also with all the government programs that the Democrats make the claim actually "help" the poor.... can you give me a statistic (just one), that shows how many have actually benefited and moved beyond government assistance, to actually becoming responsible productive citizens with their own job and contributing back to the Federal Government that helped them.... through taxes?

Taxes do not pay for Birth Control, that is included in the health care premiums. If you can get your insurance company to pay for you gym membership more power to ya.

Why do you try to make it personal as if you personally would be coming to the aid of some down on their luck person who needs a handout for what ever reason.

Taxes pay for alot more that government assistance programs.

Not slavery. Not even close to slavery.

Obamacare forces individuals to carry Healthcare and for companies to provide them, the issue of the Health Care law came before the United States Supreme Court and they labeled it as a new government "tax". This means my tax dollars are in fact paying for individuals like Sandra Fluke and her contraceptions.

What's wrong with accepting some financial personal responsibility, working hard and moving into a home you can afford (even if that means to downsize)? People can apply for a government "handout", but it's never meant as a long term solution when they are physically capable to find employment. Where is the incentive to work, if individuals develop a laxidasical lazy approach knowing they have another government taxpayer check arriving in the mail for them to cash? When you depend upon the government to provide for your needs, you become enslaved to that form of government.

Still waiting on that statistic, on how many poor Americans have actually moved on from Federal Government assistance programs to become "working" productive members of society. Moving beyond their poverty stricken upbringings to a more successful life, where they can then contribute their fair share of taxes to help pay for those very programs they benefitted from. Any stats at all?

That the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may be characterized as a tax does not mean that the funds to pay for individual premiums comes from other collected taxes.

Not slavery. Not even close to slavery