Dear Liberals: Income Isn’t “Distributed,” It’s Earned
Of all the canards nurtured by liberals, perhaps the most corrosive is their persistent reference to income as “distributed” or “taken.”
What explains that bizarre mindset? It’s as if liberals believe in some sort of mystical, heartless roulette wheel in the sky that arbitrarily “distributes” cash from a massive pile to various powerless dependents.
But that isn’t how it works. Wealth isn’t “distributed.” It is earned. And if someone wants more of it, then nobody is stopping them from going out and actually earning it instead of wailing that they want more “distributed” to them.
Of course, the entire fallacy serves a dual role for liberals. It simultaneously clouds their understanding of basic economic principles, while also serving as a tool to advance their grievance agenda. Stated differently, it leads them to pursue counterproductive social policies, and it in turn constitutes a tool to mislead others into supporting those policies.
And now… the rest of the story. …..
Harold
I totally agree about what my aunt Erica Stuart is pointing out, about the constitution needing to be adjusted in our present society as a nation. As Citizens and the times we live in, it has become a very basic human right to be health insured. We strive to having a healthy nation of people, who should not have to worry about such very basic needs. Pay your share as you pay any other membership fees, if you care to be a member of this nation, it is for the greater good. Healthy people can learn better and be much more productive. Or, can you imagine what happens, when greed meets desperation? The collapsing of the Real Estate market in the United States is a real good example for that.
Fully agree on this one Harold–Earned, usually for work or service rendered. To distribute implies receiving a portion divided in accordance with the number of receivers. If looked as presented “income” even dividend income is a form of payment in exchange for something, Distributed may or may not implies a claim on the part of the receiver. Although interest from investment is a payment for the usage of money lent to an entity and the revenues from it are “distributed” according to the amount of money lent.
A better word in both cases would be appropriate for clarity and would generate less confusion.
The question really implies by what logical, specific, legal, other than moral, does any one have a claim on my earning.
That can only be answered as MY payment to the government to fulfill is social contract. Now we have reduced the issue to the specific of the Social Contract” On that bases I may argue that before taking my earned money the government must show it is used to full fill the government mandate of the social contract. We are getting there.
Here is where the right wing conservatives adaptation of Ayn Rand
philosophy and the Liberal Humanistic philosophy clash.
Where to from here: The two philosophy can meet if it can be shown that the humanitarian action is part of the Constitution Welfare clause and such distribution will result as a benefit to the self-interest process of Ayn Rand. Self interest can be a gain or avoidance of armful repercussions.
The issue is valid in a Constitutional society of free people if we would only elect intellectual leaders instead of political propagandist. Like the republican effort to build up Ryan as a young bright contender against the Liberals. And we the people must learn to ask the right question or answer. If you ask me why we should have Medicare I would tell you that there is no pleasure living in a society where old people stand at the corner bagging or starve in their home, as it used to be, my liberal heart and conscience would not allow it, nor must our senior be treated like charity cases. But my fiscal conservative head would demand some serious regulation to avoid abuse of those programs.