Authored by William Robert Barber
A liberal progressive’s basis of ideological belief is premised on one all-inclusive a-priori covenant of understanding. Although this comprehensive assumption is, in reality, nothing more than an academic thesis, a hypothesis, this covenant of understanding conveniently is also an idea liberated of empirical evidence, logical deduction, and quantitative application. Nevertheless, the progressives faithfully, if not fanatically, trust and accept as truthful that it is government that furnishes the systematic means to permit the entrepreneur to form capital surplus. In supplementary, progressives believe it is the State, its statutes and enforcement monopoly that creates the operating wherewithal for the few to establish financial success. Finally, the progressives boast it is the State apparatus that protects and preserves the entrepreneur’s assets from banditry. In other words, it is the State that originated the entrepreneur’s opportunity. It is the State that persistently nurtures and prudently monitors, in the interest of the entrepreneur, the very utilities required of the financially successful. And it is the State at every worthy opportunity that promulgates the general thesis of capitalism and its spawn, “the free enterprise system.”
As a consequence the progressive reasoning follows that all wealth is attributed to the State.
What exactly is the State? I say, one definition of the State is: An entity that lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within certain confines. This limit of “certain confines” is proportional to the degree of the State’s unhindered execution of its physical power which in some situations is unlimited.
In the recent election the government of California endorsed a referendum wherein a certain segment of the population was penalized for earning an annual income of over $250,000, $500,000, and $1,000,000. This tax penalty was voted in the affirmative by the many who do not earn as much of an income. Now Governor Brown declared this fair but the very same governor declared that the populous were unfair and discriminatory when the majority voted against gay marriage. Of course with a super-majority in the legislature the governor no longer needs a referendum to secure all the tax dollars the unions desire.
Recently, the City of Chicago decided, since the court affirmed one’s right to bear arms, to excessively tax ammunition as a means to legitimize their authority. I am eager to measure the success of governing by the maxim “winner takes all,” versus the concept of pluralism.
Agitprop was one of the means the Democrats gained success in the recent election. Such displays of acrid disregard for the financially successful (defined as those earning $250,000 plus), the generators of employment, the odd millions of self-employed, and in general those that take capital risk have awakened the heretofore complacent to realize that for the Democrats and their brethren there will never be enough; the progressives are intransigence in their goal of hierarchical imposition upon those that have; they desire a power that is absolute, unconditioned, and henceforth above the law. The liberal progressives identify, monitor, enumerate, and confiscate through taxation the funds required to bank their ideal of fairness.
I now believe, prompted by a sense of self-preservation, amongst those that have more, a once dim percipience is emerging into a glow of distinctive awareness. The heterogeneousness richness of an ethnic America that insisted on an integrated and assimilated society has devolved into a division of participation wherein government sustenance is by some means supported by fewer and fewer worker bees. Noting that instead of cutting spending, government’s reaction is to tax those that have, print money, buy its own debt, and borrow from any and all that will lend. This is not a sustainable fiscal policy; nevertheless, in the interest of maintaining or attaining power, the Democrats divide, distort, malign, disfigure, and build a moral case that it is the responsibility of those that have to give more to those that have less.
I think it is time for those that have more to recognize that the coalescing of those that have less will always vote to take more and more and a little bit more from those who have more — the fiscal policy of those within the Democratic coalesce is unsustainable and their appetite for more is insatiable.