The IP Factor

'See if the law takes from some persons that which belongs to
them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.
See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then
abolish that law without delay ... No legal plunder; this is the
principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic.'
- Frederic Bastiat

When it comes to political ideologies, I would assert that there are those who subscribe to such ideologies that defy the very justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic of which the French statesman Frederic Bastiat was speaking. Moreover, I would extend the aforementioned list of principles to include integrity. Let us for a moment ponder on the very truism of what Frederic Bastiat was saying. Were I to accost you on the street and demand that you give me all of your money and you reluctantly obliged, but I then took that money and gave it to a homeless man on the street, indeed despite my good intentions I would be charged with a crime. Similarly, if I were to rob a bank but take all of the money to an orphanage again I’d be charged with a crime. However, the absolute defiance by those subscribing to leftward leaning (or rather socialist) tendencies seeks to de-criminalize this exact behavior when it is done by our very own government. It’s an outright shame that some would elect representatives to take up such a task. Forgive me for not offering up kudos commending them for their 'work around' to such plunder.

Of course the argument from those subscribing to such tendencies travels a 'for the public/common good' train of thought. While they vocalize this belief in asserting that the well to do should pay more, ignoring that in terms of real dollars they most certainly do, their expectation for social betterment in America selfishly comes at the expense of their fellow countrymen and it is for this very reason that it exists as a gross compromise of what I term the IP factor; IP standing for integrity and principle.

While debating (or rather arguing) sensibility with an admitted communist (one whom I might point out embraces the concept entirely so long as it occurs in another country) about the implementation of a flat tax in the purest sense of the word (and by that I mean not a flat percentage of one’s income but a flat dollar amount), he argued his point by asking 'So admit it, you want the poor to pay more?' Given the realities of my proposal, my response was that while being the farthest thing from a communist, my proposal was ironically one I thought he ought to have fully embraced given his communist vision of equality. For, what I was suggesting was that both the poor and wealthy individual, quite literally, should pay the same amount. Naturally, this was met with stiff resistance as is usually the case when conversing with liberal minds. But, while the question or inference of having the poor pay more is somehow deemed as justifiably objectionable, I should say that comparatively speaking I struggle mightily to wrap my mind around this notion or belief that having the wealthy do so is somehow not. Moreover, exactly why it is perceived by the liberal mind, as somehow selfish or greedy, that an individual should desire to keep that which they rightfully earn rather than submit it for the sake of this 'common good', while similarly such a label is not prescribed equally and fairly to the individual(s) that feels an entitlement to benefit from that which they have not contributed is too illogical. But then I suppose that benefiting from the 'common good' is a wonderfully noble concept so long as you’re not the one contributing to it.

And, it is here where leftward ideology and I part ways. For, the ideology of my adversaries holds a belief that there exists this communal good when the reality of it is that what is being promoted amounts to anything but communal (as if to suggest that communal ownership is deemed superior; clearly it is not). Rather, what we are consistently exposed to is simply one of many illegitimate entitlements propped up by a select few for the apparent benefit of all. Moreover, there are then of course such proposals which are even more misbegotten in that they are not communal in nature in the least but rather they are proposals which benefit but a select few at what amounts to the criminal expense of another. An example of such a proposal came by way, this last legislative session, of an ingenious plan to raise tax rates on the highest income earners and use that newfound revenue to provide property tax relief to but a select few. I would like to point out that yours truly would have been one of those select few. However, because I am not simply consumed with my own self interest, I made it a point to write to my representatives to tell them that such a proposal was nothing short of criminal. I suggested a better proposal to be capping them. Because you see my friends, in the spirit of 'fairness', one cannot legitimately argue that anyone who is content with reaping any sort of benefit at the expense of another doesn’t lack integrity and principle. It is precisely this entitlement mentality which is un-American not to mention inhumane, selfish, and greedy.

Unfortunately, far too many individuals in today’s society have no integrity and have no principles. What they have are wants; things they mistakenly discern as 'rights' if you will. Yet, be it known that “any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” And, I affirm that no individual having integrity and principles would ever compromise these things in their pursuit were it to violate the rights of their fellow man.