Remove the Rich
Redistribute the wealth, get rid of that high and mighty richest 10% of the world, send the money to the poor countries. Well there are a couple facts you need to consider in these statements; 1) The USA is the richest country in the world and in fact is the center of the richest 10% so when you advocate redistribution of wealth on a global scale of the richest 10% you are advocating, if a US citizen, the removal of your own pay check. 2) How does wealth get created once the richest 10% is gone? 3) How do you stop the inevitable civil war and class war that follows such a move?
It is simple and feels good to say "help the poor countries" however this is not a sustainable model for human civilization. Governments have tried for years to adhere to a concept of 'sharing the wealth of many', it has never worked. It doesn't work for a few simple reasons; absolute control brings absolute destruction, once the average citizen or peasant has their own wealth and food removed civil war ensues, love of country without love of property dies. In the turn of the 20th Century Russia tried this, killing the Tsar and attempting to redistribute the wealth for 'labor' or 'common man'. It failed horribly with untold numbers of executions, wars and eventually all out deterioration with the entire collapse of the country, economy and civilization. China has attempted a redistribution model for years and its result is having a tremendously increased poverty level, removal of human rights, increased military (very similar to Russia) and general oppression of the masses. North Korea attempts this same model of ultimate control as do many smaller nations.
Point of fact is simple, no civilization has ever benefited from the proclamations made by a 'centralized redistribution of collective wealth'. The rhetoric always sounds possible. "By working together we can all be successful" the model of two is better than one. In certain practice this is correct, working together can be more successful than working apart, but this is not and can not be mirrored on a national scale, it simply doesn't hold water. Humans are individuals from birth, they do not work the same, they do not think the same and they will not contribute the same. The Utopian-esque philosophy of 'all for one and one for all' simply belongs in a fairy tale.
Ask yourself this, would you trust your closest 40 neighbors to make it a priority your family had food, fuel, heat and shelter?
It is simple and feels good to say "help the poor countries" however this is not a sustainable model for human civilization. Governments have tried for years to adhere to a concept of 'sharing the wealth of many', it has never worked. It doesn't work for a few simple reasons; absolute control brings absolute destruction, once the average citizen or peasant has their own wealth and food removed civil war ensues, love of country without love of property dies. In the turn of the 20th Century Russia tried this, killing the Tsar and attempting to redistribute the wealth for 'labor' or 'common man'. It failed horribly with untold numbers of executions, wars and eventually all out deterioration with the entire collapse of the country, economy and civilization. China has attempted a redistribution model for years and its result is having a tremendously increased poverty level, removal of human rights, increased military (very similar to Russia) and general oppression of the masses. North Korea attempts this same model of ultimate control as do many smaller nations.
Point of fact is simple, no civilization has ever benefited from the proclamations made by a 'centralized redistribution of collective wealth'. The rhetoric always sounds possible. "By working together we can all be successful" the model of two is better than one. In certain practice this is correct, working together can be more successful than working apart, but this is not and can not be mirrored on a national scale, it simply doesn't hold water. Humans are individuals from birth, they do not work the same, they do not think the same and they will not contribute the same. The Utopian-esque philosophy of 'all for one and one for all' simply belongs in a fairy tale.
Ask yourself this, would you trust your closest 40 neighbors to make it a priority your family had food, fuel, heat and shelter?
Comments
Post a Comment