"Money for nothing and your chicks for fee" - Granite Grok

“Money for nothing and your chicks for fee”

MoneyTreeWhat I don’t get about Socialists / Progressives is that they hold two beliefs at the same time:

  1. We can give anything we want to everyone.  Because we have the ability
  2. Economics is a zero sum game and there’s not enough for everyone.

Must be hard going though life stupid.  And then vicious when they want to fulfill #1 and run into #2.  Dan Mitchell, an economics guy that I have quoted from time to time (note: must do more often) has this to say that they are going to get worse: The Left’s Siren Song of Coerced Equality (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Traditionally, folks on the left favored a conventional welfare state, which revolved around two components.

  1. Means-tested programs for the ostensible purpose of alleviating poverty (e.g.., Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc).
  2. Social-insurance programs for the ostensible purpose of alleviating sickness, unemployment, and aging (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, etc).

This agenda was always a bad idea for both macro and micro reasons, and has become a very bad idea because of demographic changes [i.e., fewer workers to support those not working -Skip]But now the left has expanded its goals to policies that are far more radical. Instead of a well-meaning (albeit misguided) desire to protect people from risk, they now want coerced equality. And this agenda also has two components:

  1. A guaranteed and universal basic income for everyone.
  2. Taxes and/or earnings caps to limit the income of the rich.

Taking a closer look at the idea of basic income, there actually is a reasonable argument that the current welfare state is so dysfunctional that it would be better to simply give everyone a check instead. But as I’ve argued before, this approach would also create an incentive for people to simply live off taxpayers.

And there certainly are people who do exactly that – live off taxpayers.  And one only has to recall that Bernie Sanders wanted to impose a 90% income tax because, you know, Obama once said “I do think at a certain point youve made enough money”.  In other words:

You don’t need that….so others can have more.

Socialism GreedYes, you all know what that sounds like – straight up Marxism. Mitchell singles out British Socialist politician Jeremy Corbyn (I had seen this earlier) as quite the example of the hypocrite – do it to others but not to me:

Jeremy Corbyn has called for a maximum wage for the highest earners, saying he fears Brexit will see the UK become a “grossly unequal, bargain basement economy”. The Labour leader would not give specific figures, but said radical action was needed to address inequality. “I would like there to be some kind of high earnings cap, quite honestly,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday.


…Corbyn, who earns about £138,000 a year, later told Sky News he anticipated any maximum wage would be “somewhat higher than that”.

Once again, BECAUSE they know better what is best for you all.  Regardless of what you think but never include themselves in the consequences. The irony abound – except before the Law, how can anyone be equal?  We’re not.  This is supposed to be a free country, free to work for your version of the American Dream.  NO, it doesn’t mean that you will attain it but that you can try unhindered.

These Socialists, though, have a different view and definition of freedom – freedom from want (go back to FDR’s Second Bill of Rights).  They never mention, however, that in wanting to do this, they prove Mitchell correct – an evil component of their “freedom” necessarily means that they must reduce freedom (and violate the Right to Private Property) for others.  They answer this themselves by word and policies – we live in an economic pie that doesn’t change and only political change can change the distribution of that pie.

Socialists and Progressives DEMAND that they be given that control.  And we all know that leads to absolute power – and that does WHAT to Freedom? And it also proves that they ONLY look at the Collective – the idea of Individuality just a wisp of smoke to be batted away like dust strings from the ceiling.

Freedom?  Only a word to be used to achieve a goal that is far from it. And that goal can only be attained by a Government that can take everything away from you.

Stephen Green notes at the end of his quoting Dan Mitchell:

The real goal of course isn’t an ever-more generous welfare state, or even “income equality.” The real goal is power — and concentrating it into fewer and fewer hands, all located in Washington, D.C.

(H/T: Instapundit)

The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen