Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables Any one here ever read anything by Thomas Paine? He has some insights into the poor and the rich. Here is a snippet from an article he titled Agrarian Justice: Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.
This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.
It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.
The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, while it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depreciation.
The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly Surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendor, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; n, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult on wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security.
To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national bless, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above other shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection. | So first Paine admits that without private property there can be no wealth. I agree wholeheartedly. So as long as the government protects private property we as citizens have an obligation to give a portion of our profits to government for services rendered. Again, no problem.
Now Paine says because we as individuals are irresponsible and cannot manage our money properly, government should step in and do it for us. WHoa!!!Big Problem. Once you give government money, they have a nasty habit of spending it. Now I understand that some people have a bad habit of spending their money and not putting it away for a rainy day. So because of this, we must all pay into a system that serves to only make us all poor in the end.
Finally Paine reverts to the old and true socialist plea of us all working for the good of society. But why should I work for someone who does not work for themselves??? Why should I pay my bills and give them an allowance to live as well. It doesn't work because in the end it breeds resentment. Resentment first from those who work and pay towards those who receive the benefits, and then resentment from those who receive the benefits against those who are successful. Class warfare brings everybody down.
Tell me, why is it that the government controls the education system, that they never teach people how money works? I mean, why are there no classes on how you can make your money work for you. Why are there no classes that discuss investment, or teach our children the value of saving a buck???
I tell you why, because if the majority of people finally learned how to succeed, there would be no need for government to continually need to take care of people. As long as the government can continue to keep a segment of the population in misery, they will have a job.
All socialism brings is instead of a few people living in misery, we all will be.
dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles -Russell Kirk- |