Posted on 01/07/2017 10:05:25 PM PST by aquila48
Any attempt to equalize wealth or income by forced redistribution must only tend to destroy wealth and income. Historically the best the would-be equalizers have ever succeeded in doing is to equalize downward. This has even been caustically described as their intention. “Your levellers,” said Samuel Johnson in the mid-eighteenth century, “wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves.”
And in our own day we find even an eminent liberal like the late Mr. Justice Holmes writing: “I have no respect for the passion for equality, which seems to me merely idealizing envy.”
At least a handful of writers have begun to recognize explicitly the all-pervasive role played by envy or the fear of envy in life and in contemporary political thought. In 1966, Helmut Schoeck, professor of sociology at the University of Mainz, devoted a scholarly and penetrating book to the subject, to which most future discussion is likely to be indebted.
There can be little doubt that many egalitarians are motivated at least partly by envy, while still others are motivated, not so much by any envy of their own, as by the fear of it in others, and the wish to appease or satisfy it. But the latter effort is bound to be futile. Almost no one is completely satisfied with his status in relation to his fellows.
In the envious the thirst for social advancement is insatiable. As soon as they have risen one rung in the social or economic ladder, their eyes are fixed upon the next. They envy those who are higher up, no matter by how little. In fact, they are more likely to envy their immediate friends or neighbors, who are just a little bit better off, than...
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Interesting....I was just watching a YouTube video of the great Dr. Jack Wheeler an his “Evil Eye” essay. A bit of synchronicity in action here.
All social engineering is based on the principle of the lowest common denominator. It doesn’t even seek to elevate those at the bottom, but only to degrade everyone else.
The redistribution of anything is an equalization of anything, and ...
Being an enemy of government indoctrination centers (public school) the whole concept of common core and any OTHER (failed) program to teach all kids that none are left behind and etc., etc. is just another "equalization" concept or the re-distribution of education.
Just as the redistribution of wealth waters down the wealth of the true earners, re-distribution of education waters down the access a true learner wants to have.
I'm not sure I've thought this through, because I can't sleep tonight and this caught my eye, but it's an intriguing thought.
Eisenhower was the only one that had a legitimate need for consolidated schools in the 50's
That was a great and thought-provoking article. It reminds me of a John Paul Getty quote which goes something like this: If you took all the money in the world, and divided it equally between every single individual living, in 90 days it would be distributed approximately the same as it is today.
In fact, let me see if I can find the exact quote, because he said it better....
Here it is:
If all the money and property in the world were divided up equally at, say, 3 o’clock in the afternoon, by 3.30pm there would already be notable differences in the financial conditions of the recipients. Within that first 30 minutes, some adults would have lost their share. Some would have gambled theirs away and some would have been swindled or cheated out of their portion (thereby making some others richer).
The disparity would increase with growing momentum as time went on. After 90 days, the differences would be staggering. And, I’m willing to wager that, within a year or two at the most, the distribution of wealth would conform to patterns almost identical with those that had previously prevailed.
John Paul Getty
I was just in a conversation at work where a co-worker intoned that “Republicans don’t care about the poor!”. This fellow was normally very astute, but his liberalism rendered him as dumb as a bag of rocks, at times.
In thinking about his statement, I pondered two aspects. First, his assertion was easily debunked by merely pointing out that I knew a Republican who had spent a lot of time and money helping out the working poor. A single counter-example demonstrates that my friend was engaging in prejudicial thinking.
Secondly, it occurred to me that Democrats think of “the poor” as a constituency. How do politicians treat their constituents? They help them to succeed! However, in the case of “poor people”, it happens to be helping them maintain their state of poverty.
If the Democrats were to magically help the poor escape their poverty, they wouldn’t be poor any more!
Thus, Democrats should be looked at with suspicion for holding the poor as constituents.
This isn’t as far fetched as it sounds. Consider the folks that are on the dole in Australia, the people in schemes (public housing) in Scotland, or on food stamps, in the United States. To the extent that these people depend upon the government for their next meal and the roof over their heads, they make a great constituency for the political left.
For their part, the political left has no particular reason to want these people to achieve an elevated economic status.
This scenario is also being played out on the world stage as third world nations are being badgered to not use fossil fuels and instead, depend on developed countries to supply alternate energy resources in a way guaranteeing the dependence of these third world countries. Of course, in the meantime, these countries can be depended upon for their U.N. votes against Israel and all the other liberal causes.
So I guess I have to concede that my friend was partially correct: Democrats care about the poor. But Democrats have a definite stake in keeping them poor!
Your Getty example is more about ability and values than envy.
It basically says that it’s the individual’s values and abilities that determine his wealth not how much money they start off with.
Of course envious people have a solution for equalizing abilities and values too, as this essay by Kurt Vonnegut dramatizes...
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
Good one.
Gregory of Nyssa identifies envy as the passion,
“…. which causes evil, the father of death, the first entrance for sin, the root of wickedness, the birth of sorrow, the mother of misfortune, the basis of disobedience, the beginning of shame. Envy banishes us from paradise....Envy made Joseph a slave. Envy is the death-dealing sting, the hidden weapon, the sickness of nature, the bitter poison, the self-willed emaciation, the bitter dart, the nail of the soul, the fire in the heart, the flame burning on the inside..." (Life of Moses, Gregory of Nyssa, quoted in Death by Envy, Fr. George R.A. Aquaro, p. 74)
"Scripture combines envy with jealousy, covetousness and stinginess, into a single concept that is a manifestation of idolatry (narcissism) of self and belief that there is a limited supply of good..." (ibid)
Envy is the spirit animating British philosopher Adam Smith's sophistry, that is, his phony concern postured in sophisticated questions and 'evidence' such as,
"Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?" "Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?” "Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't – the difference in their life chances – is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don't." (Parents reading to kids blasted as 'unfair,' Joe Kovacs, WND, May, 2015)
Ancient Greek philosophers categorized envy stirred up by perceived superiority (inequality) as ‘ zelos.’ In the poem, 'Work and Days,' Isocrates presents the spirit of zelos as "with grim face and screaming voice, who delights in evil" and causes Decency and Respect to flee.
The anonymous author "Michael Swift” is guilty of this very thing kind of envy, made evident in a widely circulated article called "Gay Revolutionary." In prose that chills the spine Swift warns the envied straight community that the men of Sodom shall be victorious,
"....because we are filled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages...We too are capable of firing guns and manning barricades of the ultimate revolution....Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks." (Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America, Peter Jones, p. 255)
bmp
See tag.
Yes, you're right. Thanks for the link to Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron." Disturbing to say the least.
Envy is the deadliest of the deadly sins.
It is also the main weapon of the left.
Your post in interesting, but I’m not perfectly clear on your meaning when you say,Eisenhower was the only one that had a legitimate need for consolidated schools in the 50's
Pls elucidate.
When the successful general ran for President, he was elected and jumped right IN on building roads all over the USA and consolidating the 1940's and earlier one room and small town school houses/buildings.
We developed a pledge to our flag and America was more unified in operation as ever before.
We really ran with the advances of the Industrial Age and better communications.
My #4 was a knee jerk response to the idea of "equalizing" and in MY mind that boiled down to "re distribution" which I find in Common Core and all the previous attempts to make children 16" on center.
I sometimes (more as I age and befuddle myself) have thoughts that I blurt out hoping someone may see some value, instigate conversation and I can then get some sleep a lot quicker because I will have determined I'm either nuts or sane.
There is something to be said about “educational leveling,” I make no doubt. There is “leveling up,” a la Khan Academy - “a free world-class education for everybody” - and there is leveling down, which is nominally the same, but is really just grade inflation and worthless paper degrees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.