Economic Equality

President Obama’s goal of Economic Equality (EE) reveals the true essence of his statist/Marxist ideology. Understand this and you will understand the motive behind all of his policies.

This country was founded on the principles of individualism and equal opportunity for all to achieve to the best of their ability. Obama rejects such principles in favor of EE: regardless of one’s efforts (or lack thereof) to succeed in life, he has an equal right to the goods and services available in the country; e.g. health care, education and a share of the income/wealth of those better off - thus significant redistribution of income. That is completely redefining “rights” and requires the immoral and unconstitutional use of force to achieve the desired ends.

The argument for EE rests on the following false assumptions:

1. That there actually is concerning inequality because the income of the rich has been rising relative to everyone else. But when defining “income” properly and fairly (e.g. adjusting for all government benefits and taxes) and using a proper measure of inequality (e.g. the commonly used Gini coefficient or consumption), the gap has not grown for at least 2 decades. 

2. That the wealth pie is constant. But with productivity, wealth continues to grow and the poor are beneficiaries, not victims.

3. That the wealthy segment is a stagnant group. However, a significant number of the rich continually move down the income ladder, and a significant number of the poor and middle class continually move up. 

4. That the wealthy’s income/wealth is earned/gained at the expense of the poor. This is only possible in a statist system. (See 8 below)  

5. That inequality is “unfair.” But “fair” cannot be determined by Obama or other politicians. It is certainly not fair that about 50% of us pay no federal taxes while the top 10% of earners pay about 75% (and the top 1% pay about 40%). To Obama, “fair” is government getting all it can from the rich. To me it is limiting government’s role to the protection of each person’s rights to his property and earnings. The latter enables creativity and productivity that produces a strong economy and increases the standard of living for all.  

6. That the wealthy’s share is beyond their need. But “need” is not a rational standard of value; e.g. it is immoral to steal from some to fill the needs of others.

7. That due to all above, one’s income/wealth belongs to government for its whimsical redistribution. But no one or government has a right to any property belonging to others. 

8. That such inequality is bad and is caused by capitalism. Under statism, force interferes with our rights and prevents individual opportunities. It condones cronyism and destroys an economy. Resulting inequality is indeed bad. But under capitalism, individual rights are upheld and trade among men is voluntary with mutual benefit. No force is imposed that creates a victim; freedom and productiveness are maximized, and resulting inequality is healthy and beneficial to all.

How can Obama possibly hold EE as an ideal goal? Karl Marx provides the answer. Marx’s philosophy presented what appeared to be a utopian view of the world: elimination of poverty, exploitation and class warfare; and yes, the achievement of EE. But he had to appeal to those motivated by envy – with hatred toward the “haves” and their values simply for “having”. His angry, Nihilist moralism became the source of statists’ greatest appeal.
 

He believed that capitalism was unjust because of inequality; that money is the root of all evil and replaces virtue with avarice; that the less you are, the more you have. “The enemy of being is having.” His goal was collectivism over individualism with redistribution of all profit and income. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” 

His philosophy represented a complete revolt against reality and objectivity, and was clearly responsible for the greatest violence (think Mau, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) and economic destruction in history.

Yet this is precisely Obama’s ideology. From his long association with Marxists to his involvement with community organizing groups to his acceptance of the radical-inspired Occupy WS to all of his policies intended to lead to EE, he has shown himself to be a Marxist/statist at a level far too serious for America. He has usurped the concept of “rights” and fully accepts the statist’s moral basis for rights: “needs” – which then become “wants” and “demands”. By accepting him with this ideology, we are destroying our values and our economy. 

One must realize that treating people equally is very different from making them equal; it is equality under the law vs. egalitarianism. "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers" (Freidrich Hayek). And the latter - with an entitlement culture trending toward EE - can only lead to further economic destruction.  

There is something wrong in our culture when a President can transform us from "ask not what your country can do for you…" to “ask what your country can do for you and it will deliver.” Or when those who believe in hard work and individual productivity are denounced and envied by those egalitarians who strive to bring us down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of those who don’t. Or when (as noted by Thomas Sowell) people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others are "compassionate."  

Understand that Marxism and egalitarianism are simply evil, and those who advocate them represent evil and must be so judged. This election is a referendum on all that is good about capitalism: protection of man’s rights and resulting freedom and economic prosperity. It is in everyone’s best interest to vote to preserve such good and eliminate such evil. President Obama must be defeated for the future stability of our country.

Freedom in Health Care

Someone recently asked: can you provide an argument why government should not provide free or subsidized health care? Yes: I can think of 3 such arguments.

1.  One does not have a right to HC. Rights are not entitlements to goods or services produced by others; nor can they be based on an irrational moral standard of “need.” They are prerogatives to freedom of action.

2.  Government does not have the right to force taxpayers to pay for it.

Government can only morally initiate force when protecting individual rights. Shame on Justice Kagan and others for saying that having the federal government fund free HC with an individual mandate to buy insurance is neither coercive nor immoral. Or for lying when saying that the mandate will lower HC costs. Or for arguing that it is moral to force insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions (and thus risk) in rating policies - a clear path to fully socialized medicine.

Our government should maintain a “separation of charity and state.” It has no moral or constitutional basis for forcing individuals to sacrifice their values for the sake of those who (in this case) either don’t want HC insurance or expect it unearned. We need to solve our HC problems as below and let the private market find the charitable answer for those who truly cannot afford insurance.

3.  There is a rational alternative means to solving our HC problems.

Obama presented a false alternative argument: we either implement ObamaCare (and contend with rationing and some decreased quality of care), or we cause national bankruptcy with escalating HC costs and let “granny die without insurance.” (The latter result is clearly a lie.)

We must first accept the fact that it is government that has caused (and will further cause with ObamaCare) the significant shortcomings in our HC system: high costs, reduced quality and accessibility. Then we must understand and accept the rational 3^rd choice: leave individuals in charge of their own health care; let free markets solve these concerns.

Thus, allow open competition for insurance coverage with flexibility of policy choices, deductibles and rates; purchase across State lines; and tax-deductible health savings accounts. Eliminate government and employer-dependent insurance, minimizing abusive use of HC services and concern for pre-existing conditions. Reform HC entitlements for efficiency and elimination of fraud; eliminate them long-term. Enact tort reform to stop junk lawsuits. Open markets for medicines and enable faster technological breakthroughs.

The obvious results would be lower costs, improved HC quality and accessibility, and - most importantly - greater freedom for individuals to handle their own HC issues and for HC professionals to more efficiently serve their patients.

The only reason for political opposition to such an option is that it a capitalistic, not a statist approach. It is not compatible with Obama’s immoral and unconstitutional economic equality and “fairness” agenda. It is compatible with freedom. Support rational reform and reject such statist controls of our economy.