Delegate Allocation Watch: Ken Cuccinelli beats out Paul Manafort in Virginia.
Ted Cruz ensures that another ten delegates in Virginia (out of thirteen) are ultimately loyal to *him*.Read More »
Economics and politics are two of my favorite areas to study. In this posting I would like to address their little discussed relationship to one another. I might first ask the question, is it nobler to serve the wealthy, or to serve the poor?
On its face it seems like an easy enough question to answer. Most people have some small measure of compassion rooted deep in the backs of their minds. We like to tell stories about evil men who are touched by the cause or the need of one particularly pitiful case and overwhelmed by their “better nature”. This sort of a scenario, and this assertion of some benevolent “better nature” assumes a great deal in the way of entitlement.
I would carry this argument into the philosophical, largely because that is the favorite arena of the tyrant left. Their argument will always be that the poor deserve more help because they need it so badly. I love that their heads live in this space because it means that their minds are easily defeated on so simple a truth as an ordinal basis in the prime fallacies. In this case we see an appeal to pity. An appeal to pity, or an appeal to emotion is always fallacious. It assumes that the need of one is such a substantial factor in one’s decision making that it should be considered even at the expense of the many. However, in arguing from an appeal to pity, one cites the need of the subject as reason for the consideration of the subject. Consider two women of like age but vastly different circumstances. As the hiring manager you are presented with two resumes. One is a clearly superior candidate for a position, but it is also entered for your consideration that the inferior candidate is a single mother in shabby accommodations with no current means of support. Can one really argue that the struggle of the better candidate to achieve the superior position is not as worthy a claim to the position as the life of poor choices that has led the later to her unfortunate predicament? Of course not. Economically speaking, if we were to agree that the poorer woman was more entitled to the position based solely on the fallacious appeal to pity, then we enter into a trading situation whereby the poor life choices that create such a predicament are being rewarded economically and therefore are made to be the more desirable choices. This then serves to degrade the quality of workers in the labor pool and lowers the value of all workers. In the same way that inflation doesn’t just raise prices, but also lowers the value of wealth earned by people, thereby hurting them twice; hiring based on need robs everyone of value.
This really is a very simple formula. The tyrant left is “known” by the people to serve the interest of the poor. In recent election cycles it has in fact been the habit of these people to cultivate a more “Robin Hood”-esque persona in affirming the intent to help the poor to the express detriment of the wealthy. The current state of class warfare politics are identical to those asserted in the construction of the holocaust and the communist revolution. On the face of it there do seem to be some differences. Barrack Hussein Obama seems to be, perhaps a little less fascist that Adolf Hitler, but really it is just a question of pacing. Remember, Hitler was also elected by popular vote. Hitler was a champion of the people, using soup kitchens to spread his message to the poor, coopting public education, and eventually replacing religious icons in churches with his own likeness. Is it just a coincidence that a charismatic half-jew fascist led the ranks of uberminch into WWII on the backs of hatred for bankers, and a charismatic half-white fascist seems to be actively degrading US foreign policy unto the brink of WWIII. But I digress.
Barrack Hussein Obama learned well the lessons of Adolf Hitler and his ilk (Jackson, Wilson, Johnson, and The Clintons) that there are a lot more poor people, and the poor vote. Jackson ascended to the office by bribing people to vote for him. He did it openly and notoriously, and paid them cheaply for the favor of it. Wilson worked to add the income tax, which reached a top rate of 67% in just three short years and has served to guarantee that perpetual difficulty of leaving low income brackets. Johnson, who’s signature legislation was the “Great Society” and created the welfare system as we know it, said; “I’ll have these niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years.” Then of course Hillary, while Bill was diddling interns and actively ignoring the WMD threats that he himself had spoken to, was busy drafting Obamacare with the original babychipping clause.
McDonald’s doesn’t tell you to not eat burgers, for the same reason that Democrats don’t try to make you not be poor. It’s bad business. As long as poverty is their target market the tyrant left will never seek to eliminate or even to alleviate its causes.
Enter bread and circus. The romans did the same thing toward the end, and it was one of the primary contributors to Roam’s collapse. At the end they were embroiled in several multi-fronted wars, and their capital reserve had been drastically depleted on welfare programs that were intended to dissuade insurrection despite poverty outside of the capital.
All tyrannical leftists live on a philosophy of basic utilitarianism. That is to say that their basis of morality is that any given action, in order to be morally correct, must serve the greatest happiness to the greatest number. This is where the politicians and the voter on the tyrannical left stray from one another. The voters on the left really do believe that they should help people in need. It is an attractive sentiment, but only in as much as it has been romanticized by the very greedy to prey on the simple minded. They are fooled into treating symptoms without ever considering the disease.
So to the question of nobility in service to other men; better to serve the poor or the wealthy? I will explain this from the logical perspective asserted by the left… utilitarianism. If it is the case that our moral goodness can be judged by the conduct of actions which serve the greatest happiness to the greatest number, then I submit that, according to the rationale of the left it is nobler to serve the interests of the wealthy before the poor. A poor man has no real mean by which to serve the good of any other people. A wealthy man cannot help but serve the good of others, unless he hoards all of his wealth to his own detriment and unto starvation. The poor man, given some money will, assuming the noblest of them, purchase food and survive for a little while longer until he requires additional assistance. The wealthy man, in the course of his daily life, employs huge numbers of people, even if they do not work for him directly. Every item he purchases serves to feed the mouths of every hand in its production and their progeny. Simply put, every single welfare dollar would feed more people if it were simply given to a man with a proven track record of successful business practices and used for no other purpose that his continuing to engage in successful business practices. This is true for three primary reasons. First, the poor are poor because they have made poor choices. Their predicament is no one else’s fault but their own, and this same predicament is clear evidence that they cannot be trusted to leverage assistive capital to effect any change in that status. Next, No one ever spends someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own. And finally, every dollar that goes into solving a problem via the bureaucracy, had it not been taken by force for that purpose, would have been spent on solving the same problem, but without the added cost of administration.
Finally, I would like to close by revisiting my assertion that the tyrannical left has a deep economic incentive to work against the people. As it is the case that the left is perceived to serve the poor and, therefore harvests most of its vote from the poor, it is in the interest of the left not only to maintain poverty, but to expand it; just like it is in the interest of Chic-Fil-A to dissuade the consumption of burgers, it is in the interest of the left to make wealth unattractive. As they seek to cause the creeping fungus of poverty to expand they employ several rather transparent methods.
Welfare; this system of bread and circus, adopted from the failed Roman empire serves to create a state in which it is difficult to engage in real work for the poor. They are finding more and more often that, while they have no work and full welfare entitlement, they cannot start in a job that pays well enough to overcome the loss of the welfare to which they have become accustomed. It actually pays better to be a ward of the state than it does to earn a living at the minimum wage.
Minimum wage; the minimum wage serves as a bar to employers and workers alike. It is the case now that employers are required to pay employees more than they are worth at low-skilled positions. Imagine how easy it would be to get a job if you could tell a potential employer, “I’ll work for next to nothing, helping someone at your business with whatever they need until I have learned enough to do the same job and then you will have two good employees with the skill set you need.” You would be able to walk onto almost any job the same day. As it stands with the minimum wage in place, it costs the same to hire a burger flipper who knows how to flip burgers and can generate enough burgers per hour to sell for his wages plus costs and a profit, as it does to hire the kid who has to watch the flipper for a week before he can flip. What if that kid could offer to stand there and watch for a week for free, and then start getting paid?
Class warfare; The most recent tool in the arsenal of the enemy to be dusted off and polished, is a push to stigmatize and demonize the American dream. The media and the current power elite, despite their own fantastic wealth, are actually working to make happiness uncool. It’s kind of like that movie “Branded” where the “Evil” Fast Food tycoons launched an advertising campaign to make fat fashionable. So, Poor is the new Cool? Pop culture is now selling welfare and socialism?
Now let’s just take a quick look at the right. Everybody knows that those sleazy right wing nut jobs only care about the wicked, dirty, evil rich, right? And we also all know that only those wicked, dirty, evil rich people vote conservative, right? Does it not follow then, that if the rich vote republican, then the republicans want more rich people voting? The right is perceived as having the interest of the wealthy at the core of their agenda. Assuming this is absolutely true, then they have an active economic incentive to create more wealth. They need more rich people to vote. To get that, they need more rich people in general. Therefore, it is in the interest of that party to do things that make people rich.
I’ll say it one more time so that you can see the two statements next to one another and tell all your friends. Democrats need more poor people to vote. Republicans need more rich people to vote. When one needs more of something they either find it or make it. If poor people vote democrat and rich people vote republican, then ask yourself not who deserves your vote. Ask yourself what kind of voter you want to be. Do you want to vote for wealth or poverty?