Brain Fertilizer

So it seems to me...

That there are people who want to make sure that no one ever starves, that no one ever dies for lack of money for medicine, that the gap between the successful and the not-so-successful should be minimized. After all, they say, if a CEO works 40 hours and a janitor works 40 hours, why should the CEO make 3000 times as much? After all, they say, there are people who could spend their whole lives working as hard as they can and never be able to earn enough to buy a house, or to retire, or to stop living hand-to-mouth.

It sounds good, right? We in the US have so much money, how could anyone be allowed to struggle?

They look to Europe, where they have 35-hour work-weeks and a month off for vacation as standards, and most retire in their 50s.

No one starves there, they have health coverage for all, it's perfect, right?

Well, then there's this (link via Zombyboy).

Is it any surprise it's a European?

See, if he does lose everything, he doesn't really have to worry; his retirement is pretty much set by the British government. He might have to work harder for a few years. And it's not really the point, since he's doing this for a stunt and will make wads of cash even if he loses, most likely.

But he's got a safety net, courtesy of European socialism. He can't really fail.

And that's what socialism is about. That's what liberalism is about. Bad things shouldn't happen to good people, and the government is the best mechanism for preventing it, and they're going to do it with your money.

See, that's one thing that gets forgotten about Europe. They spent about three centuries plundering all the wealth of the rest of the globe, snatching art and precious metals and raw materials. They even spent about 100 years taking from what became the US. It made them exceedingly wealthy. It ensured that their upper classes didn't have to work at all, and virtually enslaved the menials.

And their rigid class restrictions still exist. The son of a single mother isn't going to get the equivalent of a Rhodes scholarship, a law degree, and then use his charisma to lever himself into the highest position in the land, no. If you're born low there, you pretty much stay low. Rich don't marry poor. The Rich stay Rich, the poor are kept comfortable enough to not rise up, and for the most part they are governed without their voice or consent being considered, much.

At least in the US, most of our rich people still work.

But even more important, we have the freedom to fail. Because, see, that also means we have the freedom to succeed. You really can't have one without the other. If everyone who runs the race gets a blue ribbon, does it mean anything anymore? If you don't risk, what do you gain?

Bill Clinton could become President of the United States because we allow amazing upward mobility. The flip side of that is we have amazing downward mobility. You can be poor today, rich tomorrow, and poor the day after that. The dot-com bubble and implosion is absolutely American. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The Democrats are really offering a free lunch by trying to guarantee health coverage, social security, welfare, medicare, drug prescription coverage, racial quotas (in the guise of affirmative action), hate crime legislation, no limitations on pain&suffering awards in lawsuits, gun control. They are trying to ensure that nothing bad happens to people, which seems good on the surface.

But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. They don't ask you to pay as you leave, but you pay by losing your freedom. By losing your freedom to fail, you lose your freedom to succeed. Fight it!

Paul Newman is an excellent example, I think.

He founded Newman's Own food products. In 20 years they've given over $125 million dollars to charities. Did anyone get forced to contribute to his company? Nope. Was anyone forced to buy his product? No! I buy some of his dressings because they taste good. He makes a quality food product. Because he has enough money, after he pays his taxes, he donates all profits to charity. When Democrats target the "evil, greedy" corporations for tax increases, all it could do to Mr. Newman's company is reduce the amount they can give away, wouldn't it?

And he didn't just give $125 million to charities, did he? I'm sure there is a CEO, and a board of directors, and secretaries, and drivers, and packers, and warehouse managers, and janitors, and security, etc, etc, etc, all employed by Mr. Newman before the first penny of profit is earned to be passed on to charity.

But again, the higher taxes are raised, the harder it would be for Mr. Newman to continue to run his business. If taxes are ever raised to the level Democrats want, would he be pushed out of business? Would he move overseas and become an outsourcing statistic?

So you have a rich Democrat, someone like Al Gore or John Kerry or Howard Dean or John Edwards. They say want to help poor people. They say they want to create jobs. They say they want to make things better for the people in lower tax brackets. Do any of them, seeing the success of Paul Newman, go out and open up a business to hire the 5.7% of people who are currently unemployed? Do they try to make a profit that they can hand over to charity (since they are still very rich without company profits)? Do they even give enough of their wealth away to put them into the range of lifestyle of the average college professor? Nope. They run for office on platforms of raising money. That's right, they say that only the government can create new jobs. There's not necessarily a need for more government workers, but they'll create them because they would rather use your tax money to add people to the government payroll who cannot be fired for incompetence, rather than to risk their own personal fortunes to create something of lasting value for this nation.

George W. Bush ran a baseball team, and added value to the team before he sold his interest. His father expanded an oil company. What did John F. Kerry do? He married one rich woman, "annulled" an 18-year marriage that produced two children so that he could marry another rich woman.

I don't know about you, but I still find it galling that there's a good chance the very same money earned by a Republican Senator Heinz, by way of inheritance and marriage, was used to finance John Kerry's presidential bid.

Okay, I feel a little better now.