 |
|
The Question that Stumps All Progressives
Posted on: May 15, 2019 at 14:19:27 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
43991
Member For:
12.25 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
By Tom Woods:
If there's one thing Bernie Sanders and other progressives agree on, it's the wickedness of the 1%, and their alleged failure to pay their "fair share."
You'd think 1% of the people paying over 37% of all federal income taxes -- the most recent figure I've seen -- would be much more than their "fair share," but nope.
(Now before my inbox gets flooded with moral posturing: I am well aware that some of these people earned their money disreputably, via the state. But had they earned it creating the most awesome consumer products in the world, Bernie supporters -- who do not make these delicate distinctions -- would still be demanding their dough.)
It makes no difference to me that some people earn massive fortunes. This affects my life in no way at all, and to spend even a minute thinking about it is a complete waste of time and energy that would be better spent being productive, or even drinking paint thinner.
But for other people, the wealth of some people is the cause of the poverty of others. Or, frankly, envy simply makes them resent other people's wealth.
So they demand redistribution from the 1%. The lifestyle gap between these ultra-rich and the average person, they believe, is obscenely great, a moral outrage.
So I've asked this question:
"The difference in lifestyle between you and someone in Zimbabwe seems as great to Zimbabweans as the difference between the 1% and you seems to you.
"By what consistent moral principle are the American 1% to be expropriated, but you are not?
"If you earn even $32,400, then you belong to the global 1%.
"Why should only the 1% within an arbitrary set of borders be targeted for demonization and redistribution, but not 1% of the whole world?
"In other words, when can we expect you to write your check?"
The best they've been able to do is this: Bernie wasn't running for president of the world.
Talk about a dodge!
We're not talking about actual public policy here. We're talking theory and philosophy. The office involved is irrelevant. On what consistent moral grounds is one group to be expropriated and not the other?
Could their principle really be: whatever group I don't happen to belong to is the one that should make the sacrifices?
If there's one thing Bernie Sanders and other progressives agree on, it's the wickedness of the 1%, and their alleged failure to pay their "fair share."
You'd think 1% of the people paying over 37% of all federal income taxes -- the most recent figure I've seen -- would be much more than their "fair share," but nope.
(Now before my inbox gets flooded with moral posturing: I am well aware that some of these people earned their money disreputably, via the state. But had they earned it creating the most awesome consumer products in the world, Bernie supporters -- who do not make these delicate distinctions -- would still be demanding their dough.)
It makes no difference to me that some people earn massive fortunes. This affects my life in no way at all, and to spend even a minute thinking about it is a complete waste of time and energy that would be better spent being productive, or even drinking paint thinner.
But for other people, the wealth of some people is the cause of the poverty of others. Or, frankly, envy simply makes them resent other people's wealth.
So they demand redistribution from the 1%. The lifestyle gap between these ultra-rich and the average person, they believe, is obscenely great, a moral outrage.
So I've asked this question:
"The difference in lifestyle between you and someone in Zimbabwe seems as great to Zimbabweans as the difference between the 1% and you seems to you.
"By what consistent moral principle are the American 1% to be expropriated, but you are not?
"If you earn even $32,400, then you belong to the global 1%.
"Why should only the 1% within an arbitrary set of borders be targeted for demonization and redistribution, but not 1% of the whole world?
"In other words, when can we expect you to write your check?"
The best they've been able to do is this: Bernie wasn't running for president of the world.
Talk about a dodge!
We're not talking about actual public policy here. We're talking theory and philosophy. The office involved is irrelevant. On what consistent moral grounds is one group to be expropriated and not the other?
Could their principle really be: whatever group I don't happen to belong to is the one that should make the sacrifices?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
The Question that Stumps All Progressives - ummmm MU - 5/15 14:19:27
-