Redistribution Has Just Begun

Liberals embrace socialist “ideologies.” Ideologies are a collection of ideas, or a systematic body of concepts about human life or culture. In somewhat different words, ideologies are the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program, e.g., Marxism or some economic and political variant. Socialism is best illustrated by a secular society in which the state owns all productive assets and there is no private property. Collectively we refer to such idologies as Liberalism.

A conservative (or a libertarian) would tell you that society cannot be made (forced) to fit some abstract scheme dreamed up by this or that thinker, and attempts to make it do so have always failed. An ideology is not a naturally occurring event, but an unnatural order applied to individuals of a collective membership, in this case, citizens of the United States.

Conservatism, in contrast to liberalism, is a philosophy as opposed to an ideology. The philosophy is to preserve what is established, which is based on evolved tradition and social stability, and which relies on the best of culture that has been historically successful. Conservatives do not embrace any ideology. They reject all ideologies. A conservative individual is less likely to experiment, avoids abrupt change, and is typically cautious and discreet.

Income redistribution (redistribution of wealth) is a political policy promoted by liberals as part of their ideology, and understandably it is opposed by conservatives. The basic premise of the belief system underlying liberalism is that money (wealth) should be more equally distributed so that accumulated wealth benefits all members of society, regardless of who earned it, and that the rich should be obliged (forced) to assist the poor on the pretense that the income shifting mechanism benefits the whole of society.

Thus, earned money should be redistributed from the earner to those who have not earned it, creating a more financially egalitarian society. Politicians expect - no, demand public funds, your tax money to subsidize those who they have arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged (in return for votes). The entitlement culture (egalitarianism) is saying you owe it to them.

Egalitarianism is a liberal moral doctrine imposed by force. It is an ideology that equality ought to prevail throughout society even if it is at the detrimental expense of many members of society, typically those in the top 50% of American wage earners (those with a joint income over $31,000 per year). The most common form of egalitarianism today espoused by liberals, of whom both political parties are rife, centers on the belief that government should engage in an unnatural communal approach to individual income.

"Who is supposed to be equal?"
"In what respect are they supposed to be equal?"
“At whose expense are they supposed to be equal?”

Apparently it isn’t enough that equality already exists in all endeavors of the American mind, hands and heart, only that those Americans who compete poorly believe they are wrongfully and/or “unfairly” materially disadvantaged and therefore should be subsidized by others in society.

• According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law.
• According to education egalitarianism, everyone ought to be provided an education.
• According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth.
• According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs.
• According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power.
• According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity.
• According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions.

With the exception of the last liberal epistle, American society is egalitarian. Few would dispute this as a fact except to be argumentative. The final premise regarding material and financial wealth is understandably the greatest source of consternation and debate. Those receiving have come to expect it. Those giving have come to resent it. The undeniable correlation is an inverse relationship between material egalitarianism and the American Economy, the latter peaking over 30 years ago. Material egalitarianism (redistribution) continues to grow unchecked, arguably beyond reason, and seemingly without limits.

Our founding documents provided all egalitarian equalities, short of income and education redistribution, which only began after income taxes became a national reality and Congress attempted to engineer social mores with the revenues. Until then education was viewed as the reward for seizing opportunity, regardless of an individual's material circumstances. All that need be provided was opportunity.

Often, liberal proponents of redistribution argue that the rich are somehow exploiting the poor, first by the rich educating themselves, then working, achieving and enriching themselves, and somehow gaining “unfair” benefits as if by deceit and avarice. Socialists, a synonym for liberals, contend redistributive practices are necessary in order to redress the imbalance. Today, even when opportunity is spurned by the recipients, as in education for example, all other forms of wealth are never-the-less liberally redistributed with life-time tenure.

If in fact all men were created equal, why are some still receiving welfare? Egalitarianism is nothing less than the liberal acknowledgment that nobody is created "equal," except arbuably in the eyes of the law in the United States of America. Egalitarianism is also a profound liberal acknowledgment that redistribution will be a wildly successful method in a representative society to obtain and hold on to power. Thoughtful reflection will convince anyone that redistribution benefits no one - except politicians. (See archived article: The End Times)

“Unfair” is the key word. Everything depends on the vantage point of the person using the word. In typical fashion, the person using the “unfair” word has either: (1) never had to compete for anything in their life and seeks equitable distribution of national assets without competition, or (2) is so poorly prepared to compete, often by presonal choice, that productive citizenship is not reasonably possible. Congress has seen fit to reward the latter’s stellar performance with lifetime tax-free annuities on behalf of the rest of us, members of what should be Team America.

From each according to his ability (education and work ethic and a host of other attributes), to each according to his need (lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc.). It is often lost on ideologues that education and work ethic are somewhat redundant and typically the result of personal choice.

You may not believe it today, but redistribution has only just begun. If the current Administration has not made you a believer, it is hard to imagine what could. Barack Obama maybe.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Posted October 1, 2008 12:52 PM
Read more on Articles - Red State Patriot ~ Education ~ Socialism ~ Welfare and the Entitlement Culture