The Unfairness of Leftism

Imagine that average guy Joe Madrigo has been saving his money, because he is humble enough to know that he cannot perfectly predict the future. He gets married and his wife Margaret also works, so they begin to save a little more. Soon, they have children, and then Joe’s father begins experiencing cognitive decline. They are able to provide for and care for all of them. They even have a little left over for occasional splurges and their charity of choice, Main Street Missions.

That fall, the governor signs into law a 10% across-the-board tax on all income earners. The rationale for this is, is caring for the poor. This law, in effect, states that any giving that individuals or families are currently doing is insufficient. While it does not say so explicitly, the punishing aspect of this law cannot be removed; it is an individual judgement and an individual punishment. In the guise of equality, it tells Joe and Margaret that they are not doing enough, which is the very same thing it says to Johnny D’marco, who gives only lip. It does not recognize that some are already fulfilling the spirit of this law and some are not, yet it punishes both the just and the unjust with the same sentence. This is unfair.

Not only are the lawmakers inaccurate in their assessment of how charitable both the Madrigos and D’marco are, they are also ignorant of the circumstances of both. What they do not know, is that a 10% tax would prevent the Madrigos from giving at all, and that same 10% tax would cause Johnny’s boss at Ye Olde Fish n’ Chips, to decide he doesn’t need the wait staff he does, and to fire Johnny. As a result of this tax, actual charity is being prevented, and the income that the tax would raise is less than expected, because some of those now taxed, have no income at all! This is unfair.

At this juncture, some might complain that the tax is simply not targeted enough, but targeting the tax only changes the size of the box that contains disparate unanalyzed individuals. So if the tax applied to only those earning $100,000 or more, the same situation would apply — some people are already charitable, and some are not. Some are living just within their means due to existing debt or family situation. Slicing and dicing the penal aspect of a tax is an impossible goal — the power to tax is the power to punish. The best that can be done is applying taxes rarely and targeting behavior, not income. Crafting such laws requires wisdom and time, which are usually jettisoned in favor of simplistic laws sold as charity.

This so-called charity performed under government force is nowhere near as efficient as charity either from private individuals or from private organizations. The government simply does not have the accountability, transparency, spirit, work ethic, or nimbleness of the other two givers. Neither does it have the freedom to operate with discernment. Because the government must serve all equally, it often ends up giving to those who are the worst off without ever evaluating what has landed them there, and thus often subsidizes people who perpetually make poor life choices. That these people spend such funds poorly and continue in squalor then becomes a rallying cry for more government-administered support, in a never-ending quest that ends up perpetually rewarding those who choose poorly at the expense of those who make better choices, in a mockery of charity and mercy. This is unfair.

Worse yet, what are the worldviews of those who pass such simplistic laws, thinking that they will solve problems? Do they not care to examine those whom it affects closely enough, or are such laws enactments of deeper animus? Human beings have been involved in government for their entire existence; there are literally yards of books upon the subject. Men are without excuse for how laws generally affect others (which is why the ancient concept of doing as little harm as possible is important). If a lawmaker somehow happens to be ignorant of what he is doing, he is either a child, stupid, or mentally incapacitated, and so is unfit to govern. He remains without excuse. Those who pass laws cannot escape from knowing the consequences of those laws. That leaves animus as the most likely motivation.

Such taxes take from one and it give to another via the intermediary of government, that just so happens to soaks up much of the money collected en route. Those who impose taxes thus punish, and judge individual behavior, nearly always to the benefit of the government, not the individual. They say, “I will take your money and give it to other people, some who are deserving, most who are not. We want to pass more laws like this, because you aren’t worthy of the money you make. Only we know best how to spend it. Don’t be selfish.”

Despite the quasi-pious language, such laws exist fundamentally as wealth and power transfers from the citizen to the government, which always filter down to the supporter of government, the leftist. They rarely serve any other purpose. As poverty cures, they are miserable failures. Such laws never have end goals in mind or set any targets that can reliably be attained. The government rarely shrinks; its objective is to perpetually grow, always taking more. Most people are charitable and thus the whole reason for charity taxes is false on its face. Further, if the government were any good at this enforced charity, we would hear the successes lauded without end — instead, all we hear are uncomfortable silences followed by demands for more. It is animus that propels such programs, and success is not the object. It is all a cover story — a disguise designed to obscure the motivation of transferring wealth and power to leftists.

Fundamentally, leftism is unfair. It punishes people who do good, discourages those take care of their own and others. It exists only to reward dependency and irresponsibility so that some can be perpetual serfs and the proponents of government can be kings and queens.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Income Inequality is Not Something to Fear

Whenever someone whinges on about income inequality, they reveal three things.

A deep-seated envy of what you have.

What is this complaint but a desire to take from others and give to themselves? Oh sure, they will talk about the poor, but you’d better believe they themselves will get a nice cut as a reward for their “generosity”. The poor need to stay poor, you see, so that they can keep being “merciful”, keep being adored, and have the good life.

Making everyone in a nation have the same amount of money is not the goal. The goal is to make most people poor and to make themselves rich, because they themselves have suffered and it isn’t right. They deserve more! They deserve what belongs to others. They deserve what belongs to you and you don’t.

They don’t care to sacrifice what they have earned.

Oh no. It’s always about punishing someone else for…what, exactly? If someone has stolen, there are laws and enforcement for that. It’s not about crime. It’s about punishing others for being successful, for doing more, for being better than the person advocating this position. They are fundamentally ashamed of their own life and so they want to punish others instead of fixing themselves.

A fear of others taking from them.

This is a desperate insecurity; as long as others out there have money, they are a threat. Those with money can prevent the advocates from taking money from others, and that isn’t right. Other people must lose their money so that the advocate can be rich and be looked up to by the poor.

As I’ve said before, leftism is selfishness, and one of the tell-tale signs of selfishness is complaining about income inequality, thinking that the differences that lead to differences of wealth are things that can be and must be changed by government.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Bitter South

I read an interesting piece on the history of Muscle Shoals, AL, in the music business. Sure, I’d heard of it from Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama”, but I had no idea that the music studios there produced such legendary songs as Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” or Bob Dylan’s “Gotta Serve Somebody”. The article is here.

That aside, some strange things about the article began to creep up upon me. Why were the writers so obsessed with race? Why was “white boy” used as a derogative term? Why were they involved in the lame and pathetic music festival that recurs like a chronic infection where I live? Yet the name of the site was so cool. Could I have found a kindred spirit? I kept looking around the site.

They published books of fiction, too. I fell into a little swoon; but I kept reading. Something just wasn’t right. Then I found it — their statement of beliefs. You know, the trendy list of saying on cute particleboard backing, framed?

Nestled between the “bless your heart” and peach ice-cream was this: “A woman’s right to her own body.” The scales fell from my eyes. The words, themselves, aren’t the important thing — what they meant was inescapable. They are pushers of child murder.

I turned away.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Spent Poetry

I write poetry, sometimes.

Every so often I scour the interweb to find a place for it. I am always disappointed; now I am spent. Yesteryear freeverse was all the rage. The new trends are to take flash fiction and give it random line breaks, write two poems side by side, or to take someone else’s work and erase certain words, leaving them to say what they never intended.

For those unacquainted with the mentality of modern art, I am not kidding.

How did we get here? As long as I have read, modern poetry has been obscurantist, that is, deliberately vague, cloaking every hint of meaning behind multiple layers of misdirection. After seeing these new trends, I can only surmise that poetry is hopelessly lost. It no longer communicates to anyone except those who have accepted the poison manacles of modern art. Think of this — journals of poetry were once popular. The common man once read them. That dream is hopelessly out of reach now. Poetry no longer has meaning, for it does not speak of transcendence, and it has just as much relevance. It just mumbles word soup in chiaroscuro. It has collapsed in upon itself, and it audience is only the shrinking audience of its peers, who dialog like schizophrenics.

Modern poetry proclaims its smug superiority to the readers, befuddling them with obscure and overly complicated phrases, hides away its meaning except when it has none and proclaims loggorhea mingled with profanity as meaningful. The poet now exists only to proclaim his superiority to anyone foolish enough to read his verse. Communication and meaning, exunt.

But what about Christians? I expected people of faith to have a better hold on the importance of forms, but that is not so. The journals of faith that I came across are just as neck-deep in disarray as the rest. They preach a world no sensible than the chaos preached by the self-wrecked citadels of modernity. Once again, a chance to witness, missed.

The poems that spoke to me and still speak now are out of the past, the greats now forgotten.

My words have no place in this time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

The End of Leftism

I think that once all the sad people have found their quests for importance, position, influence, power, and attention exhausted like dead suns, they will look back on the whole enterprise and see that it was simply selfishness. That is, by proclaiming to do for others, they reduced others and accreted more to themselves, for the purpose of glorifying themselves. This is because they never sought the empowerment of others, but rather the perpetual dependency of others upon themselves. Why? Because they never understood mercy.

True mercy requires selflessness. Selflessness does not seek the spotlight. It disdains ribbons, hashtags, and followers. It labors in the shadows and it does not seek its own glory. Rather, it seeks the flourishing of others.

Those who brag about their selflessness are selfish still.

Those who make others dependent upon themselves are not merciful. They are playing at being God and that is why leftism always ruins society and never satisfies. The road to utopia always ends like the end of Madelyn Murry O’Hare — in the desert, surrounded by the dead.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

The Mysteriously Disappearing Evidence

I read today where yet another person who claimed that he had kept detailed records, now states that those records have disappeared. Ah, Christopher Steele, a man of such integrity! The fact that he takes refuge in the last resort of scoundrels only is further evidence of his character.

Whom else has this unfortunate (yet politically expeditious) event happened to? I know of two other people, both whom have a very tenuous relation to the truth.

Hillary Clinton is one. Recall how the emails on her server mysteriously vanished, and then she played the idiot about it? “Wiped, like with a cloth?”

Michael Mann, the climate alarmist and father of the ridiculous hockey-stick graph is another. Somehow, all the data behind his original research that supposedly showed earth’s average temperature rising at a catastrophic rate, was destroyed in a flood. Now all that remains is the weighted data.

Is it fair to accuse these people of being liars? Yes, and here’s why. They are acting like common criminals, who do whatever they can to hide or destroy evidence so that the crime cannot be traced back to them. The innocent have nothing to fear from others examining whatever data generated by their research or deeds. Only the guilty have reason to hide, and those who somehow lose all the data just when it could hurt them, are testifying to their guilt, because they know what they have will convict them, not exonerate them. If they felt such data was useful, they would never have allowed it to be lost (or rather, destroyed).

The guilty hide; the innocent fear nothing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Democrat Mom Shocked to Discover Essential Oils Deemed Non-essential [Satire]

(Thousand Oaks, CA) Local mother, Democrat party activist, and part-time essential oils distributor, Mary McCarthy, was horrified to learn that under Gov. Newsom’s executive order #101919198, that during the COVID-19 quarantine, that essential oil distribution was deemed “non-essential businesses”. She posted her feelings to her Facebook account late Thursday night. “How dare he! It’s right in the name – essential oils! I can’t even. He’s acting like that dictator, Trump!” She then followed up her post with a ten-minute video where she vowed to sell on, despite the ban, “We’re all in this together,” she said in closing, “and remember that Mycardia essential oils can help you through this time of unusual stress and strain. Only $19.99 for a starter pack. Hit me up in a message. Hashtag hereforyou!” She went to Gov. Newsom’s Facebook page and added this, “Lift the ban on essential oils or I will seriously consider not voting for you! PS But don’t open the economy too soon.”

Posted in satire | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment