Imagine if you will the American south in the antebellum years. The air is moist and sticky with the summertime heat, the breeze is soft and cooling. A fine house sits atop a gently sloping rise, it’s white columns bespeaking the status of those folk who live there. They sit on the veranda sipping lemonade, the women fan, the men smoke corn cob pipes.
The scene then takes us across the yard, through the many trees draped in Spanish moss, along a gravel road, well maintained and hardly rutted at all, water flows down a hand dug canal to water fields of tobacco and cotton. The air is scented with gardenia, not planted on purpose but growing along the canal just the same lending a gentile appearance to the farm. We fly over farrow and row, the workers down below, some weeding, some directing water, some removing worms from the cotton.
The farm owner gives them free food each day: A meal in the morning, at lunch, and at diner time. They get their clothing for free as well, woven from the cotton they tend. At night they go off to free housing and play music until bedtime.
The people in the above vignette are obviously slaves.
They have all their food provided, a built-in job, free housing, and time to make music and have babies.
But they aren’t free
“There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob. – Ayn Rand”
What that means is that if I cannot take your money from you and give it to another by force t[epq-quote align=”align-right”]”There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob. – Ayn Rand”[/epq-quote]hen the government shouldn’t be able to do that either. It was long accepted in America that taxes were meant for things of common use. We all use the military, the police, the fire department, the roads. Then it was stretched to libraries, schools, and welfare. It slowly went from the shared needs of the society to the needs of the individuals within that society. That is a striking difference in philosophy.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler
I’m sure even the leftists have heard that quote or some form of it many times before, but they never seem to believe it. They never seem to see all the failure of socialistic forms of government. They just push on as if yesterday’s failure will be today’s success if only they do it right this time.
Here’s one way in which they fail, they simply don’t understand economics.
“Once you realize that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are — a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer, as we were told.” ― Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism
What Chang says in that quote (and he’s a respected economist) is simply and palpably false. First off, trickle-down economics is a fact. Saying it doesn’t work doesn’t’ make it so. Saying it doesn’t work simply shows one’s ignorance of capitalism. People with money spend that money. It’s silly to think they are hording it like dragons in a cave. Even if their desire is to make more money they still have to spend it.
But let’s assume for one moment that they actually do horde it.
Where do they horde it at?
Certainly they don’t stick it under a mattress or in mason jars buried in a field by the white oak tree. They put it in banks, in stocks, in places that earn interest. Why do those places pay someone do store their money? Because they aren’t actually storing it. Even though a bank has a great big vault it’s not actually just locking the money away. Banks spend your money! Hopefully you knew that but I realize someone people simply just haven’t thought about it. Banking is a business and they use your money to earn money. You basically lend them your money in exchange for a bit of interest and they go off and invest your money to make more for themselves. In so doing they hire people to manage those funds, they hire tellers, bankers, receptionists and services to do landscaping on the building, cleaning, parking lot maintenance, someone to repair the ATM when it breaks, armored truck drivers. All that money from rich old bankers trickles down. How anyone, let alone an economist, can say that’s not what happens is beyond me.
There’s a saying, very popular among the right, “A poor man never gave me a job.”
It’s a neat saying, nice and tidy, making a strong point about trickle down. It’s also wrong. Perhaps that’s where the confusion comes in. Trickle down doesn’t happen only from “the top” down. It happens at all levels. Anyone who has, that spends, is the “up”, and anyone who gets that money because of that spending is the “down”.
Did you ever mow laws as a kid? Take your dad’s mower and push it up and down your block looking for a house with long grass? I did. I would knock on the door and make them an offer. Sometimes they would negotiate the price a bit, work in the back yard or some weeding that needed done to keep the wife happy. $5 a yard. They weren’t rich by any means. But they had $5 more than I had. I did the work, took the cash, and spent it at the corner store for some candy cigarettes and Big Chew bubble gum. A poor man did give me a job. He trickled down what he earned to me, and I to the store, who hired someone to run the store, who earned money which he spent on his needs and the needs of his family. That’s trickle down. It works. No man can call himself an expert who doesn’t understand this very basic concept.
But what of that other man?
He’s a slave too you know. He is beholden for his money. Since it’s given to him by the government it can be taken away from him as well. Perhaps he’s a smoker, drinks large sugar drinks, owns a gun, or doesn’t approve of something the government wants and as a means to persuade him (as if that’s what persuasion is) they take away his “benefits” until he conforms. You’re a slave to that other man, but he’s a slave to the government.
For those of you who support UBI and think the government would never abuse their power, or who think that scarcity could never exist under such a system, you simply haven’t been paying attention. UBI is nothing new, it’s been tried before and failed horribly.
Enter UBI, Socialism, Communism, Slavery
[epq-quote align=”align-right”]”There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob. – Ayn Rand”[/epq-quote]In another article I explained how a Universal Basic Income is a double form of slavery.
On the one hand men work and have the fruits of their labors taken from them and given to someone else. It’s not taken to pay for security, or things used in common by all. It’s taken and given to another so he has to work less.
Who decides all this? The plantation owners of course! In this case we call them: government officials, bureaucrats, administrators, perhaps a committee. But NOT YOU.
What happens when they decide you need to give more? You give it of course. You’re a slave to the needs of another man.
The article below isn’t about sex trafficking, that’s a front. The article is really about the universal basic income. The author is simply using a propaganda tactic to make their position seem appealing. “Want to help the poor victims of sex trafficking? Then give us your money!” It’s a tactic that has worked for centuries.
I find it ironic that the image is someone chained and the headline reads, “True Freedom Comes With Basic Income” because the actual truth is that a basic income can only be created by taking money from someone and giving it to someone else thus denying the earner the freedom to do what they want with their money and their labor. While universal basic income may put money in some people’s pockets it only does so by removing it from someone else thus making them a slave to that other person. They no longer work for themselves but work to give someone else money.
What’s in a name? The left seems to think re-branding is all they need to make their old, tired ideas fresh and ready for a new generation of dupes. Socialism and communism are bedfellows. There is much debate about how they are different. In all substantive ways they aren’t different. They are both fruit of a tree with deadly root.