A question of 'need' and 'wants' among lower classes or working people rates high in the chattering classes that believe they have the answer to all things necessary for survival, and that is government control of outcomes.
But government cannot control human nature which in many cases their 'want's that exceed their 'need'. Providing a $15 an hour wage for the most basic jobs is not in the best interest of the work as it provides no incentive to become better. Hard work, education and dedication has to play an important roll in defining one's success. And further how long will it be before the high wage will not be enough? New wants will dominate. The first big wage increase was easy enough without earning it, why not another?
And even more important for left politicians is of course, the progressive socialist liberals need to make sure that the lower income classes remain that way so the liberal democrats can demonstrate how they are fighting the corrupt Republicans that demand people earn their way in life.
Again, the old motto from a failed ideology of the last century, ''To each according to ones need and From each according to one's ability'' works well for socialist democrats. They will live and die by that ideology.
God created everyone equal and in his own image, but our Constitution just says that everyone has an equal chance at becoming prosperous. It takes a will and hard work to be successful. And everyone's needs are different just as everyone's wants are different, everyone's definition of success is different as well. But the leveling of the playing field is everyone has the same chance to acquire a personal level of success given ones drive and ambitions.
As the author points out there are circumstances that effect out comes as well, and that is where responsible and temporary government assistance is required.
Why Democrats Are Obsessed With Wealth Inequality
Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager /
If you want to understand today’s Democratic Party, a word search of a Democratic debate in 2015 provides a pretty clear picture. Here is how many times keywords were spoken:
This raises two questions: How important is material inequality? And if it is not that important, why does it preoccupy the left-wing mind? The answer to the first question is: It depends. It depends, first of all, on the economic status of the poorer members of the society.
If the bottom percentile society has its basic material needs met, then the existence of a big gap between its members and the wealthiest members of the society is not a moral problem. But if the members of the bottom rung of society are in such an impoverished state that their basic material needs are not met, and yet there is a supremely wealthy class in the same society, then the suffering of its poorest class renders that society’s inequality a moral problem.
And what most matters in both cases is whether the wealthiest class has attained its wealth honestly or corruptly. If the wealthy have attained their wealth morally and legally, then the income gap is not a moral problem.
In a free society, wealth is not a pie—meaning that when a slice of pie is removed, there is less of the pie remaining. And the poorer members of society have the ability to improve their economic lot.
Through hard work, self-discipline, marriage, and education—and with some degree of good luck—the poor can join the middle class and even the wealthy class.
The latter is generally the case in America. Unlike in most societies, for most Americans being poor is not a fate. The only time being poor becomes permanent is when noneconomic factors render it so.
These factors include not having a father in one’s life, growing up with no family or social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children.
The left, with its materialist view of life, refuses to concede these nonmaterial producers of poverty and that changing behavior is therefore the only way to raise the majority of the poor out of their poverty. Of course, when bad luck—such as chronic illness or being the victim of a violent crime—is the reason for one’s impoverished condition, societal help is a moral imperative.
Instead, the left believes that the focus of attention must be on reducing the wealth of the wealthy—again, as if the wealth is a pie. Thus, the left demands a redistribution of wealth in society—taking money (that was honestly earned) from those who are wealthier and giving that money to the poor.
But all that does most of the time is prolong the poverty of the poor, as they are not only not forced to engage in productive behavior, they are actually paid to continue whatever unproductive behaviors they are engaged in. All this should be obvious to anyone with common sense. But incorrect ideology always distorts common sense.
So, why is the left preoccupied with inequality in a society in which most poor people have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty? Because of its class-based materialist ideology.
Because seeing some people own luxury vehicles, multiple homes, and even private jets while others live in small apartments feels wrong to the left—and leftism is based on feelings.
Because it prefers that the state, not the individual citizen, has as much wealth as possible.
And because when you don’t fight real evils (communism during the Cold War, and now Islamism, Russian expansion, Syria’s use of chemical weapons), you fight non-evils. And material inequality is non-evil.
But government cannot control human nature which in many cases their 'want's that exceed their 'need'. Providing a $15 an hour wage for the most basic jobs is not in the best interest of the work as it provides no incentive to become better. Hard work, education and dedication has to play an important roll in defining one's success. And further how long will it be before the high wage will not be enough? New wants will dominate. The first big wage increase was easy enough without earning it, why not another?
And even more important for left politicians is of course, the progressive socialist liberals need to make sure that the lower income classes remain that way so the liberal democrats can demonstrate how they are fighting the corrupt Republicans that demand people earn their way in life.
Again, the old motto from a failed ideology of the last century, ''To each according to ones need and From each according to one's ability'' works well for socialist democrats. They will live and die by that ideology.
God created everyone equal and in his own image, but our Constitution just says that everyone has an equal chance at becoming prosperous. It takes a will and hard work to be successful. And everyone's needs are different just as everyone's wants are different, everyone's definition of success is different as well. But the leveling of the playing field is everyone has the same chance to acquire a personal level of success given ones drive and ambitions.
As the author points out there are circumstances that effect out comes as well, and that is where responsible and temporary government assistance is required.
Why Democrats Are Obsessed With Wealth Inequality
Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager /
If you want to understand today’s Democratic Party, a word search of a Democratic debate in 2015 provides a pretty clear picture. Here is how many times keywords were spoken:
- Wall Street: 23
- Tax: 20
- Inequality: 9
- Wealthy: 7
- ISIS: 4
- Terror/ists/ism: 2
- Defense: 2
- Military (excluding Jim Webb): 1
- Freedom: 1
- Debt (national): 0
- Liberty: 0
- Strength: 0
- Armed forces: 0
- Islamist/Islamic: 0
This raises two questions: How important is material inequality? And if it is not that important, why does it preoccupy the left-wing mind? The answer to the first question is: It depends. It depends, first of all, on the economic status of the poorer members of the society.
If the bottom percentile society has its basic material needs met, then the existence of a big gap between its members and the wealthiest members of the society is not a moral problem. But if the members of the bottom rung of society are in such an impoverished state that their basic material needs are not met, and yet there is a supremely wealthy class in the same society, then the suffering of its poorest class renders that society’s inequality a moral problem.
And what most matters in both cases is whether the wealthiest class has attained its wealth honestly or corruptly. If the wealthy have attained their wealth morally and legally, then the income gap is not a moral problem.
In a free society, wealth is not a pie—meaning that when a slice of pie is removed, there is less of the pie remaining. And the poorer members of society have the ability to improve their economic lot.
Through hard work, self-discipline, marriage, and education—and with some degree of good luck—the poor can join the middle class and even the wealthy class.
The latter is generally the case in America. Unlike in most societies, for most Americans being poor is not a fate. The only time being poor becomes permanent is when noneconomic factors render it so.
These factors include not having a father in one’s life, growing up with no family or social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children.
The left, with its materialist view of life, refuses to concede these nonmaterial producers of poverty and that changing behavior is therefore the only way to raise the majority of the poor out of their poverty. Of course, when bad luck—such as chronic illness or being the victim of a violent crime—is the reason for one’s impoverished condition, societal help is a moral imperative.
Instead, the left believes that the focus of attention must be on reducing the wealth of the wealthy—again, as if the wealth is a pie. Thus, the left demands a redistribution of wealth in society—taking money (that was honestly earned) from those who are wealthier and giving that money to the poor.
But all that does most of the time is prolong the poverty of the poor, as they are not only not forced to engage in productive behavior, they are actually paid to continue whatever unproductive behaviors they are engaged in. All this should be obvious to anyone with common sense. But incorrect ideology always distorts common sense.
So, why is the left preoccupied with inequality in a society in which most poor people have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty? Because of its class-based materialist ideology.
Because seeing some people own luxury vehicles, multiple homes, and even private jets while others live in small apartments feels wrong to the left—and leftism is based on feelings.
Because it prefers that the state, not the individual citizen, has as much wealth as possible.
And because when you don’t fight real evils (communism during the Cold War, and now Islamism, Russian expansion, Syria’s use of chemical weapons), you fight non-evils. And material inequality is non-evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment