Legal Plunder

Legal Plunder – a term by French philosopher and economist Frederic Bastiat for what is otherwise called "stealing" (hmm, "Thou Shalt Not Steal" – is that why so many Progressives want religion out of the public square – an inconvenient truth regardless of its origin?).  It is one thing to pay for a limited government (e.g., military, some infrastructure) but is it moral to take from one to give to another (in a faux act of charity) by merely passing a law to satisfy a socialist ideology?

In America today, the Progressives / Democrats have all but staked their livelihood on identity politics: we are not all Americans but simply subsets of people either identified by race, religion, sex, or economics. While they try to talk about "uniting", all they accomplish is to futher ensconce stereotypes and hatred of "the other" by manipulating the sense of the oppressed victim against all others – and often, it is simply a trumped up charge.  Think of it as Alinsky’s Rules writ large.

I hate it.

Carol Shea-Porter (if you listen to any of the posts from her town hall, you’ll hear it) definitely used this tactic: "oh, don’t worry about the cost: the top 1 – 2% of the rich will be paying for it".  Standard stuff for Democrats – "the other" in this case are the rich – who, by their definition, had to have stolen it from the poor (even as many of the Democrat leaders are among the richest in the nation).  Often, their rhetoric gets all tied in knots when called on it, and then they soft pedal (back to the faux charity – they are the GOOD people taking from the EVIL people to give to the VICTIMs).

The problem is VERY apparent when pretense is dropped and their philosophy is laid out in the clear – as Chan from Weekend Pundit found out as he was outside (you guessed it!) the Laconia town hall by Carol Shea-Porter (emphasis mine):

…One of the first things I realized about the folks I was talking to was that they had little understand of economics, particularly in regards to ObamaCare, and did not understand the implications of the heavy economic burden ObamaCare will impose. They were of the opinion that "the rich will pay for it all" and that they don’t pay nearly enough. I asked one of them how much money the rich, as they defined them, made in a year. She guessed over a couple of trillion dollars a year. Even after I informed her that even if they took 100% of what the rich made in a year to pay for ObamaCare, the government would only collect about $400 billion. I also mentioned the government would only collect that much the first year and that the second and subsequent years they would collect $0 because either the rich would pack up and leave or they would ‘go Galt’ (go on strike).

Her response?

The government should force them to work so they could "pay their fair share of taxes." At that point I said her "So you would advocate turning the rich into slaves just to fulfill some twisted ideal of ‘social justice’?" Of course she said no, but I pointed out she had just said they should be forced to work against their will. That, by definition, is slavery, something that is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.

From that point the discussion pretty much ended as I think she realized she had strayed into a topic that was indefensible from any viewpoint and didn’t want to talk to me any more.

Willing to enslave others just so that others can have what they can produce – pretty much the Progressive mantra.  It is the dirty little secret to which they will not admit to but that is what has to happen so that they can "give" to others.  In fact, that is the impression Shea-Porter was giving: "look what we have given to you."  This is socialism, plain and simple.

According to the latest IRS numbers that I remember, the very rich earn 22-26% of all income; they pay about 40% of all income taxes; yet, the Progressives want even more.  Shea-Porter goes softly – Chan’s debater goes hard core; both are all about the same issue:  their belief that it is moral, their right, and their duty, to take from those that have spent of their time, their talent, to earn what they have.  I look at the rich as pretty much those that have worked their tails off, were persistent at what they do, and have persuaded others to voluntarily part with their hard earned money to purchase what they are offering for a service or good.  Evil?  No.

To take from others for no recompense used to be called slavery.  It still is – to take from others that which is not yours.  They are not simply taxing to allow a government to run – they have gone way past that point to self-moralizing concerning their legal thievery.

Until they are called on it, they will not stop.