Proponents of "Socialism" like to tout how it will (in their dreams),
Well, the numbers don't support that theory. Even if the Government could confiscate ALL of the wealth and income of the so-called "one-percenters," that would not provide enough cash to foot this enormous bill. Not nearly enough.
In fact, everyone productively working in the economy will have to pay well-over half of their gross income to fund these costly benefits for - mainly - everyone else (in addition to themselves).
So the Government acts as little more than a Clearing House for income and wealth, taking it from those with "an excess" and giving it (after Government takes its cut for administration and overhead) to those who either will not or cannot provide for themselves. And don't forget, those with an "excess" are also responsible for paying for the fundamental costs of government - National defense, safety and security, roads, environmental protection, the post office, national roads, and on and on and on (See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).
Assuming that the high earners do not just scale back to avoid this horrible abuse at the hand of Government, how is it MORAL to confiscate more than half of one's earnings to pay for the living costs of others? Is this not what we normally call "theft"?
Charity is a good thing, and God bless those who are charitable, but having money taken from one at the point of - in effect - a Gun is not "charity" at all. Again, it is theft or extortion, depending on how you look at it. But both are immoral. And lest we forget, the act of voting for this theft, either as a legislator or a common citizen, is not "compassionate." It makes you part of an immoral confiscatory conspiracy.
But what about "Democracy"? What if "the People" vote for Socialism? That doesn't change the moral aspect at all. Imagine a large room where 99 people have ten dollars each and one person has a million. They hold a vote to see how the $1,000,990 should be divided. Not surprisingly, they decide overwhelmingly that everyone's money should be accumulated and distributed equally. That's fair, right? Equal distribution? Democratically decided. No more "INEQUALITY"! Isn't that the definition of fair?
No! Of course not! They have used the tool of "democracy" to steal the millionaire's money!
And this is exactly what would happen if, for example, the "Green New Deal" were enacted into law. Money from the productive would be confiscated to fund the pipe dreams, wants, and needs of the unproductive. Theft. Immorality. Even if "democratically" enacted.
Socialism is not only economically stupid, it is immoral.
- Feed the hungry,
- Care for the injured, sick and dying,
- Clothe the naked,
- House the homeless,
- Nurture children, and
- See to the needs of the extremely elderly, infirm, and incapacitated, not to mention,
- Pay for birth control and abortion, and
- Save the Planet for generations to come.
Well, the numbers don't support that theory. Even if the Government could confiscate ALL of the wealth and income of the so-called "one-percenters," that would not provide enough cash to foot this enormous bill. Not nearly enough.
In fact, everyone productively working in the economy will have to pay well-over half of their gross income to fund these costly benefits for - mainly - everyone else (in addition to themselves).
So the Government acts as little more than a Clearing House for income and wealth, taking it from those with "an excess" and giving it (after Government takes its cut for administration and overhead) to those who either will not or cannot provide for themselves. And don't forget, those with an "excess" are also responsible for paying for the fundamental costs of government - National defense, safety and security, roads, environmental protection, the post office, national roads, and on and on and on (See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).
Assuming that the high earners do not just scale back to avoid this horrible abuse at the hand of Government, how is it MORAL to confiscate more than half of one's earnings to pay for the living costs of others? Is this not what we normally call "theft"?
Charity is a good thing, and God bless those who are charitable, but having money taken from one at the point of - in effect - a Gun is not "charity" at all. Again, it is theft or extortion, depending on how you look at it. But both are immoral. And lest we forget, the act of voting for this theft, either as a legislator or a common citizen, is not "compassionate." It makes you part of an immoral confiscatory conspiracy.
But what about "Democracy"? What if "the People" vote for Socialism? That doesn't change the moral aspect at all. Imagine a large room where 99 people have ten dollars each and one person has a million. They hold a vote to see how the $1,000,990 should be divided. Not surprisingly, they decide overwhelmingly that everyone's money should be accumulated and distributed equally. That's fair, right? Equal distribution? Democratically decided. No more "INEQUALITY"! Isn't that the definition of fair?
No! Of course not! They have used the tool of "democracy" to steal the millionaire's money!
And this is exactly what would happen if, for example, the "Green New Deal" were enacted into law. Money from the productive would be confiscated to fund the pipe dreams, wants, and needs of the unproductive. Theft. Immorality. Even if "democratically" enacted.
Socialism is not only economically stupid, it is immoral.
