I have a former coworker that I am friends with on FaceBook. While he and I shared some commonalities outside our employer, he definitely leans far further left than I do...and most other people I know. Not a week goes by where he isn't posting a story about the struggles of "the worked class" (his words; not mine), and makes no secret of him being a (literal) card-carrying socialist. Yes, yes...run screaming for the hills.
While his views aren't necessarily that different from mine on human rights and similar social issues, he seems to be rather vehement in his disdain for people who maximize the opportunities capitalism offers. In other words, he's pretty fired up against the super rich. Stories about people who buy million dollar yachts are not well received.
This person (and many like him) favor some form of external force that would "level the playing field"; that through some form of government involvement or people's revolt, these rich bastards would have their ill-gotten gains stripped and redistributed to those who would be "more deserving".
I've never agreed with that concept. Not because I think people should starve while others burn $20s for fun...but if they got those $20s legally, I really can't find fault with what they do with it. Sure, there are "more productive" or "more moral" choices the super rich can make with their money...but it's their money. Once you steal it (through private or government driven purposes), you've traded one form of wealth redistribution for another.
I find myself wondering who sets that standard. Does everyone in the world get a check? What is the cutoff? Do millionaires get fleeced, but as long as you have $999, 999.99 in your bank account, you get a pass from the angry mob?
This is why I'm so against any external force deciding who gets what. There will always be haves and have nots, though not for the painfully laughable platitudes involving "welfare queens" and "lazy hippies". It ties to a number of factors, many (but not all) of which have nothing to do with controllable issues. It's just easier to dismiss others with a broad brush. To demonize...the other class.
So we now have this "class warfare" term bandied about; the scary sounding, "trust no one" idea that states you're either with us, against us, or insensitive to the plight of some other "us". This is sounding more and more like a board game, but everyone seems to be reading from a different rule book.
I think what this "class warfare" question of "haves versus have nots" need is a single rule book. This is being endlessly debated in the form of politics, but over time, we can hopefully develop a better set of rules to more purposefully address how guns, drugs, welfare, religion, and other hot button topics get addressed, rather that drawing lines in the sand.
Of course...you can always flip the game board and stomp away, as many children do when they don't like how the game has progressed. But I have to say...flipping the game board and introducing chaos might seem like a good idea, especially if you're currently disenfranchised, but uncontrolled fires have a way of burning everyone, including the people that set them.
Post #5-free topic 1 of 2
No comments:
Post a Comment