The Road to Slavery?

Candidate Barack Obama told “Joe the plumber” that he thought we were all better off when we redistributed the wealth. Now, as President, he’s proceeding to do just that. In other words under Obama’s leadership, the government is taking money from those who have it to make it available to others who don’t. Generally, (not always) those who create wealth are those who are most productive, most creative, and/or most industrious.

When wealth is taken from those who worked hard to earn it and given to those who didn’t, the producers, over time, lose their incentive to work. (Consumption of vodka in the Soviet Union benefitted hugely from this circumstance.) This, of course, threatens to reduce the amount of “wealth” available for redistribution. When the New England Pilgrims first established themselves in Plymouth, they tried the share-the-wealth approach. Soon, according to Governor and historian William Bradford, it became obvious that some were slacking and relying on others to produce all the food for the community. Leaders decided that thenceforward each family would be expected to plant its own plot to provide its own sustenance.

What is there about present circumstances to suggest that wealth redistribution will be any more successful that it has been historically? Nothing.

When people decide that they would rather rely on others to provide for them, overall productivity drops. It then becomes incumbent on the government to require them to return to work. There’s a word for forcing people to work against their wills. It’s called slavery. The normal incentive to work, enlightened self-interest, is replaced by government coercion.

The road we are traveling under the present “progressive” administrative, could well lead to slavery. The irony of this is obvious.

How in the world could the Federal Government possibly compel newly unproductive people to work against their will or in occupations they haven’t freely chosen? After all it’s against the law to use the military against American citizens and there simply aren’t enough police to do such a massive job. One would think that a politician who planned to lead the country down this road would have thought of all this. Well, perhaps he did. Perhaps that is why Barack Obama claimed that we need a “civilian homeland defense force that is as well-funded as the military”, in other words a republican guard, a domestic force responsible only to the President.

Too paranoid? I hope so. Stay tuned.

© Dwight Boud 2010

Advertisements

One response to this post.

  1. Posted by Chuck on January 13, 2010 at 11:10 am

    I’ll second that! They would also be used to snatch the last bit of wealth from the rest of us.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: