Here is "the real motive of any person who's ever preached the slogan: 'From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need'....At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination...Now I know that they didn't do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently...they have a reson that they do not wish to tell...There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself." (For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand; New American Library, 1963; pp 122, 123)
Why would BO say something so stupid as: "We need to spread the wealth around. That is good for us all"? Doesn't he realize this has been going on in our country for 2 centuries? Maybe he doesn't know the history of this country. Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other financial structure or any other society. Was all poverty gone? No, of course not. And the socialist structures certainly could not even begin to claim they had accomplished that. Capitalism did a much better job in easing poverty than any other structure. All the other structures created more poverty. And capitalism raises people out of poverty without taking from some by force to give to someone else who has not worked for it. And capitalism created more charity than any other society. It did not erase poverty, but it did much more than any other society ever has.
So why did he make such a claim? Why do people who are socially cultured, educated, supposedly intelligent make such a stupid claim and buy into this destructive silliness? It could be a number of reasons. 1.) It could be they are just evil and want to destroy our country. 2.) Or they are not smart enough to realize that what they said makes no sense at all. 3.) Or as Ayn Rand states: they wanted to horn in on the profits that were being made in our society without working for them.
The last one makes most sense. Look at the corruption in our federal government today. Look at Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, and the list could go on almost without end. Look at the lobbyists. Look at the CEOs that cuddle up to the politicians. Read Reckless Endangerment by Ann Morgenson and weep. When taxes are put together with the force of law, people begin to hope they can horn on the wealth that will collect under the threat of law.
The only way to solve this is to shrink government to such an extent that people are not tempted to use it to force others to supply what they want. The federal government's purpose is not taking care of us, is not providing for us our daily needs. Its purpose is to create an atmosphere where the private sector is safe and secure so that it can do the work that supplies us with our daily needs. Anything beyond that leads to corruption and tyranny, which is where we are headed if we don't get this stopped.
Why would BO say something so stupid as: "We need to spread the wealth around. That is good for us all"? Doesn't he realize this has been going on in our country for 2 centuries? Maybe he doesn't know the history of this country. Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other financial structure or any other society. Was all poverty gone? No, of course not. And the socialist structures certainly could not even begin to claim they had accomplished that. Capitalism did a much better job in easing poverty than any other structure. All the other structures created more poverty. And capitalism raises people out of poverty without taking from some by force to give to someone else who has not worked for it. And capitalism created more charity than any other society. It did not erase poverty, but it did much more than any other society ever has.
So why did he make such a claim? Why do people who are socially cultured, educated, supposedly intelligent make such a stupid claim and buy into this destructive silliness? It could be a number of reasons. 1.) It could be they are just evil and want to destroy our country. 2.) Or they are not smart enough to realize that what they said makes no sense at all. 3.) Or as Ayn Rand states: they wanted to horn in on the profits that were being made in our society without working for them.
The last one makes most sense. Look at the corruption in our federal government today. Look at Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, and the list could go on almost without end. Look at the lobbyists. Look at the CEOs that cuddle up to the politicians. Read Reckless Endangerment by Ann Morgenson and weep. When taxes are put together with the force of law, people begin to hope they can horn on the wealth that will collect under the threat of law.
The only way to solve this is to shrink government to such an extent that people are not tempted to use it to force others to supply what they want. The federal government's purpose is not taking care of us, is not providing for us our daily needs. Its purpose is to create an atmosphere where the private sector is safe and secure so that it can do the work that supplies us with our daily needs. Anything beyond that leads to corruption and tyranny, which is where we are headed if we don't get this stopped.
No comments:
Post a Comment