Skip to content

Income inequality….really? Really?

January 5, 2014

special-american-dream-comparison-tableIn the early days of the new year, you’ll be hearing a common rallying cry from the leftists in order to divert your attention from the disaster that is Obamacare and  the weak economic recovery.  Here in upstate New York we’ll be getting the socialist message from our Big Brother down river and it will reverberate from the lips of our divider-in-chief, President Obama at the state of the union….and “income inequality” will be the new boogeyman to frighten and cow the American people.  Indeed in a recent speech by Obama he sited income inequality as one of the defining issues of our time.  Really?

From the birth of our republic, protection of property has always been one of the sacred foundational ideas seen as the proper end of government.  While God created the earth and it’s bounty for the benefit of all men in common, once an individual puts his or her own effort and labor into something, it then becomes his private property which must be protected at all costs.  William Blackstone said in his Commentaries in 1765:

So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.

Redistribution of wealth in any form, but especially by government, is morally wrong and violates the very foundations of our Constitution.    Sam Adams wrote in 1768 to the Massachusetts house of Representatives, on property and liberty that:

The Utopian schemes of levelling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional.

Further, John Adams wrote in his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States in 1787:

Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leaver them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables.  Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have?  Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty.  Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with hit’s present possessors;  Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted.  What would be the consequence of this?  The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.  If “THOU SHALT NOT COVET,” and “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,”  were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

The left will make a big issue of “income inequality”, make no doubt about it.  They will spread falsities, such as that poor people are somehow stuck that way, when the truth is that in America, mobility – either up or down the economic ladder – is open to everyone.  This is one of the unique traits of America, that we have no “nobility” where you are stuck in a certain social position due to some quirk of birth.

Since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, many billions of government dollars have been poured into schemes to some how magically lift people out of a social condition by government programs and fiats…however, it has only created more government dependency and a wider “have” and “have not” gap and mentality.  Programs such as increasing the minimum wage actually hurts job creation at the lower end of the employment scale, which is where most people start as their first rung on the ladder to upward economic mobility.

Income inequality certainly does exist in America, and it’s a good thing, otherwise there would be no “American Dream” to strive for.  When you hear the left bleating about the “unfairness” of it all, tell them how unfair it is that you have worked to earn what you have and should be allowed to keep the lions share of it without having the government take more than it’s share to redistribute to those haven’t earned a share.  For the truly poor and needy in this country, government should not be the answer, but people, through charity and private giving.  America is the most giving country on earth, and we don’t need the government to act as the redistributive middleman.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: