We all see a deadlock between the “right” and the “left” in most countries. Nothing is going forward, at least not in a direction which really improves lives for a majority of people. Both sides sit in the trenches jabbering. The right accuses the left of an entitlement culture, where everyone wants food, housing, education and some gimmicks for free without working for it. The left accuses the right of rigging the system, largely avoiding taxes and avoiding responsibility for their own failures (banking). Just to name a few. Both are actually right but they pull the cart in the same, wrong direction.
The more the left wants to redistribute funds to the poor and downtrodden, the more the right protects itself with bills signed into law by corrupted politicians. The really rich, or what we called aristocrats some hundred years before, have the money to rig the democratic system, so that eventually not they but the middle class is carrying most of the tax burden. Remember, the middle class are those who in reality provide a surplus through their work. The poor mostly don’t work anymore, because they are on benefits, alas no surplus can come from them. The rich mainly manage their wealth, which cannot be considered productive work, but unlike the poor they have a giant surplus.
All policies in the western world work in favor of the capital owners, have no/little influence on the status of the poor, and punish the middle class. Statistics show that the gap widens and more and more middle class people slip into the class of the poor. We should also be aware of that if we’d take away all the wealth of the rich and distributed it to the poor, the effect would be temporary. In a few years we would be back at status quo. So, what would happen if we take away (most of) the wealth of the non-working rich and do NOT distribute it to the poor?
To make it clear, I don’t argue for no inheritance at all and/or no redistribution at all.
Redistribution of wealth should be limited to those who for whom it’s impossible, under no circumstances, to support themselves. That would be people who have health problems (mental or physical) that render them disabled for work. Until before the industrial revolution, we were mainly farmers or craftsmen. The French revolution had major impact, because those who worked refused to have the fruits of their labors taken away by an aristocracy and the church who largely didn’t work at all. The regular Joe who didn’t want to work became a beggar (or a criminal with a usually very short life). What the “left” has become these days is a highly organized beggar mafia.
Inheritance should be limited to that what an average person needs to live. A house and a piece of land, and maybe a few gimmicks; so that the sons and daughters of billionaires can start their lives at middle class level. Today’s aristocracy are the people who inherited wealth and have often done nothing at all to deserve it. What the “right” has become today is a mirror image of feudal lords who dole out cash for their willing supporters in the media and governments in order to stay in power.
For strong people it is attractive to show and proof their strength, and to be rewarded for that. They appreciate a level playing field, not a “no one left behind” policy. Competition separates the wheat from the chaff. The losers must not be denied the right to live or to eat, but if you want to strife for excellence you cannot let the losers decide. If the losers can democratically decide that the winners must be the slaves whose achievements must be shared to the point that they have no or little advantage being winners, they will shift their efforts to outwit the takers. They will rather excel in cheating the system with force, propaganda and lies, instead of putting more efforts into improving in the fields they succeeded in.
For weak people it is rewarding to find strength in numbers. They want their 3 push ups count as much as the 30 push ups the strong can do, even to a point where they won’t even need to try a single push up. The weak can use their strength in numbers in a democracy to steal from the strong. The only thing they can excel in is to be a robber baron. In that way, the very rich and the poor masses actually – but unwittingly for the poor – work together, they want to take from the strong workers and do nothing themselves. The lazy aristocracy of the middle ages needed the church to put out the necessary propaganda in order to not get mauled and marauded by the poor. Being ordained by god was a strong argument to which the stupid people submitted. Being ordained by daddy’s inherited wealth seems to be broadly accepted today.
Today’s political left is a highly organized beggar cartel and the political right is corrupted by inherited wealth. The losers are the physically and mentally strong people who do all the work, but are robbed by the left and denied a level playing field by the lazy heirs. If you play to the left, you have to offer the treats (free shit for everyone). If you play to the right, you have to offer treats as well (low taxes, bailouts). The democratic system is skewed in favor of those who want their treats and don’t care where they come from. I’d say universal suffrage was not such a good idea; if we had a qualified suffrage of those who work and provide a surplus, we’d certainly move in a different direction.
Left by the wayside is the commons, the public property.
The commons is where the excessive wealth should be invested in and the lazy should be put to work. If a medieval village wanted a church, or a market, or a wall around their premises, a school, some night-watch policemen, etc. they had to convince the rich to give money and the workers to donate some of their time in order to realize their wish which could then be enjoyed by everyone. Those who didn’t donate money or work were shamed and sometimes forced. The common good was something good that all could use in common.
The lefties arguments nowadays that something is for “the common good” is usually a lie. Feminism is not not good for everyone but maybe for a few radical feminists and other lazy people. The redistribution of wealth to people who have no interest in work (but an unlimited desire for goodies) is not for the common good, it’s just the opposite.
Shift forward from now, maybe a few decades or centuries. Say we had invented the “Star Trek replicator” by then. So any material demand can be fulfilled by everyone, no one will have to work to survive (today’s 3D-printers may be a very first step to get there). Robots may do all the housework, transportation, etc. There will be other problems in such a future society, but scarcity won’t be an issue.
Wouldn’t this be the dream of lazy people in today’s societies? I hope they could recognize that punishing the smart and industrious people by stealing from them every which way, will not get us there. If today’s high IQ people and their supporters and workers are busy to dodge the bullets, they have not enough time and energy left to invent the future commons.
Is it futile to try to convince stupid and lazy people to contribute to a better future? Maybe most are really incapable of understanding and we might have to trick them into it. Do we need the “church of the Star Trek replicator” ?
“Star Trek Replicator and 3D printer” by Shisma – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Trek_Replicator_and_3D_printer.svg#/media/File:Star_Trek_Replicator_and_3D_printer.svg