from CW at The Pesky Truth blog:
“A leftist is a person with the mind of a criminal whose ambition is to harness the power of the government in the commission of his crimes.”
~CW, conservative patriot, July 20, 2018
“You’ve got to hand it to the Left for their entrepreneurial spirit. The busy little bees never stop working to think of new ways to transfer wealth (read: steal) from one person so that it can be placed into the pocket of another, because the ability to do so is what ensures the Left’s ability to amass power, and power is their ultimate drug. If only there was a way to harness all that energy for good, such as for making license plates or picking up trash on the sides of the highways.
The latest wealth transfer scheme of the busy bees is innocently referred to as “universal basic income.” No doubt is sounds non-threatening to those who haven’t yet come to terms with who the Left really is. The idea of using the government as a tool for taking money from one set of citizens to give to another is hardly new. It’s come up over the years in one form or another as the criminal minds on the Left test the sheeple’s appetite for participating in their scheme of theft. When they can’t get much traction (because sometimes the people with consciences out number those without), they quietly retreat until the opportunity seems ripe to try it once again.
Apparently they believe that opportunity is now, so the busy bees are waging a mass campaign to introduce the concept here, there and everywhere so as to warm the sheeple to this idea. While I typically avoid reading leftist-run news media (probably a big mistake on my part but in my defense confronting the dishonesty and ignorance is just too depressing), I would bet my last dollar that the propaganda campaign has been long underway, with the seeds being sowed for ways by which the sheeple can justify becoming part of the scheme. I encountered one of the sheeple in a comment section of a Fox News article the other day who, in response to my comment expressing disgust with the scheme, informed me that it will be necessary because people are going to lose their jobs with the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI). I reminded him that the nature of the work world is that it’s always changing, and somehow people have managed to adapt….until now, and isn’t it funny how we need wealth transfer to save us from AI just like we need wealth transfer to save us from climate change when the climate has always been changing? It was too late. He has his justification and he is intent on using it.
So now many of the Left’s busy bees are coming out publicly in support of the scheme called universal basic income, Mark Zuckerberg being one of the more notable figures to do so when he gave the commencement speech to the latest batch of indoctrinated robots emerging from Harvard. Most recently the king busy bee, Barack Obama, decided it was time to let the world see a bit more of his true colors when he gave a Nelson Mandela Lecture in Johannesburg (Mandela was affiliated with the communists, btw) in which he said, “…we’re going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income, review of our workweek, how we retrain our young people, how we make everybody an entrepreneur at some level.” Wasn’t that sly, the way he just slipped that in there? It all sounds lovely, doesn’t it? There’s no one slicker than Obama. Here’s a leftist who’s always working to increase the power and stranglehold of the unions talking about making “everybody an entrepreneur.” The man must laugh himself to sleep every night thinking about the joke that he’s playing on the world, all at our expense, but I digress.
This is not going to be a post about why the concept of universal basic income “won’t work” because to do so is to fall into the trap of legitimizing the very idea, which is precisely what the leftists want us to do. Think about this: When was the last time you heard someone argue that murder “doesn’t work” or rape “doesn’t work” or grand larceny “doesn’t work?” It’s absurd, right? We wouldn’t entertain such arguments because we don’t accept that there is ever a legitimate case to be made in favor of murder, rape or robbery. The same should be true for Universal basic income a.k.a. theft. It won’t work because we won’t allow it, and we won’t allow it because it’s theft. That’s the only type of “argument” that should be made when rejecting the scheme the Left smilingly calls “universal basic income.”
Those of you who scoff and say it could never happen should remember that Obamacare is still around, beaten up but not dead. If I were in congress I would introduce a bill that declares the concept of universal basic income, or anything like it (because they’ll just keep changing the name) to be not in keeping with the Constitution or the American promise of liberty, and that anyone who attempts to sell it in public is suborning theft, and this should be declared a crime so that thieves like Zuckerberg, Obama and others can shut up or go to jail.
I’ll close by suggesting what seems obvious to me, which is that we already have universal basic income, except we’ve always called it by it’s old fashioned name: WORK. You lose one job, you go get another one, and for this you get paid. If that means you have to be re-trained, so be it. People have dealt with advances in industrialization and technology for a century without resorting to mass theft. Let us hope we can remain that sort of people.”
~CW
Universal Basic Income is just rebranding communism under a different name, and it will fail because it takes away the incentive to work. People work hard when they get something out of it. Take away the incentive to work hard, and people merely working for the common good tend to suddenly get lazy.
I am reminded of another post I did on Thanksgiving. Few know the history of the Plymouth Colony included two disastrous years of attempted communism – which failed miserably as it always does, but the colonists failed immediately because they did not have the accumulated fruits of years of capitalism to redistribute at the start…
Plymouth Colony Planned as Collectivist Utopia
…What resulted is recorded in the diary of Governor William Bradford, the head of the colony. The colonists collectively cleared and worked the land, but they brought forth neither the bountiful harvest they hoped for, nor did it create a spirit of shared and cheerful brotherhood.
The less industrious members of the colony came late to their work in the fields, and were slow and easy in their labors.
Knowing that they and their families were to receive an equal share of whatever the group produced, they saw little reason to be more diligent in their efforts.
The harder working among the colonists became resentful that their efforts would be redistributed to the more malingering members of the colony.
Soon they, too, were coming late to work and were less energetic in the fields.
Collective Work Equaled Individual Resentment
As Governor Bradford of the Plymouth Colony explained in his old English (though with the spelling modernized):
For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense.
The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.
The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them.
And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it.
Because of the disincentives and resentments that spread among the population, crops were sparse and the rationed equal shares from the collective harvest were not enough to ward off starvation and death. Two years of communism in practice had left alive only a fraction of the original number of the Plymouth colonists.
Private Property as Incentive to Industry
Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.
As Governor Bradford put it:
And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end . . .
This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only did many families produce enough for their own needs, but also they had surpluses that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and improvement.
In Governor Bradford’s words:
By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their planting was well seen, for all had, one way or other, pretty well to bring the year about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.
Rejecting Collectivism for Individualism
Hard experience had taught the Plymouth colonists the fallacy and error in the ideas that since the time of the ancient Greeks had promised paradise through collectivism rather than individualism. As Governor Bradford expressed it:
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of the vanity and conceit of Plato’s and other ancients; — that the taking away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.
Was this realization that communism was incompatible with human nature and the prosperity of humanity to be despaired or be a cause for guilt? Not in Governor Bradford’s eyes. It was simply a matter of accepting that altruism and collectivism were inconsistent with the nature of man, and that human institutions should reflect the reality of man’s nature if he is to prosper. Said Governor Bradford:
Let none object this is man’s corruption, and nothing to the curse itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
The desire to “spread the wealth” and for government to plan and regulate people’s lives is as old as the utopian fantasy in Plato’s Republic. The Pilgrim Fathers tried and soon realized its bankruptcy and failure as a way for men to live together in society.
They, instead, accepted man as he is: hardworking, productive, and innovative when allowed the liberty to follow his own interests in improving his own circumstances and that of his family. And even more, out of his industry result the quantities of useful goods that enable men to trade to their mutual benefit.
Giving Thanks for the Triumph of Freedom
In the wilderness of the New World, the Plymouth Pilgrims had progressed from the false dream of communism to the sound realism of capitalism. At a time of economic uncertainty and growing political paternalism, it is worthwhile recalling this beginning of the American experiment and experience with economic freedom.
This is the lesson of the First Thanksgiving. This year, when we, Americans sit around our dining table with family and friends, we should also remember that what we are really celebrating is the birth of free men and free enterprise in that New World of America.
The true meaning of Thanksgiving, in other words, is the triumph of Capitalism over the failure of Collectivism in all its forms.
About Author
