…Yesterday, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (you know, the man who does not own a comb) announced that he will seek the Democrat party nomination.
Sanders: “The rich become much richer, the level of income and wealth inequality has reached obscene and unimaginable levels.”
Sanders will no doubt make his name by fighting inequality. This is a vain battle, destined only for failure.
There is inequality in nature. It would be impossible for every being to have the same strength, ability or intelligence. This is not an injustice, because it is naturally inevitable. Natural inequality.
This natural inequality changes form and manifests itself in different ways as society and man advances – but it is always still there.
The Comte de Tracy: * “If, to banish from Society this natural inequality, we undertake to disregard natural property, and oppose ourselves to its necessary consequences, it would be in vain: for nothing which has its existence in Nature can be destroyed by art.”
It becomes quickly evident, after only a short consideration, that any war upon equality would be indeed in vain. So why then, will it be carried out?
Because it is a great pretense for plunder.
Nothing new: take from the “greedy” billionaires and give to the hardworking, downtrodden poor. We shall soon see, however, that such a system will only worsen this supposed inequality.
Everyone has an interest as both as a producer and a consumer. Those who produce, must also consume.
It is then, in the best interest of the poor to have property and wealth – all property and wealth – be protected and not encroached upon. From it, springs new wealth which benefits the entire economy.
If taken by government, that is the end of the wealth in question – it becomes sterile. Even if it does reach it’s intended destination, the help of the poor (which is only possible after a few “incidental expenses”) it would be spent upon a good or a service, and that would be the end of it. The economy – society – is scarcely better off than it was before.
Left in the hands of the business owners, the capitalists, the investors, in a word, the rich – it will be productive. It will be invested and deployed in operations that will create new wealth. Yes, it will benefit the rich, but at the same time, it will benefit the whole economy.
No, this is not “trickle down economics.” Such an theory, if it is indeed a legitimate economic theory (which it isn’t) would be ridiculous – it would be absurd to say that commerce flows in one direction only. No, for society is nothing but a series of exchanges, a continual network of mutually beneficial transactions – nothing more.
Apologies for the length of this entry – maybe it will make up for my not posting in awhile. Comments always appreciated.
*From his Treatise on Political Economy (1817).