On “income inequality”
— which even such supposedly fiscal-minded Republicans, most notably Paul Ryan, have conceded is concerning, I have but this to say: like minimum wage increase arguments, “income inequality” arguments are populist horse shit and, if we had a party that represented the ideals of this country, and wasn’t simply an opposition party solely for the purposes of being an opposition party and awaiting turns in public sentiment (and the paucity of choices) to take their turn at the helm of the unwieldy federal juggernaut, we would’ve buried this particular piece of leftist agitprop easily and from the start.
And the way to do that is unbelievably simple: by identifying what exactly it is that is being argued for. “Income inequality” — once this tactic of rejecting it rather than trying to prove a compassion that is not in any way truly tied to the notion of “fixing” income inequality, is adopted without reservation by a political movement unabashedly tied to free market capitalism — can then be described accurately and in no uncertain terms: it is nothing more than the rebranding of communism, dressed up in the language of rights and “equality” (though equality of outcome, not of opportunity, which is a radical egalitarianist formula that has never ever worked, the dessicated “fruits” from which litter history and even now hang from the dead trees of North Korean economics) for the purposes of making what is soul-crushing, government-enforced police state conformity (from which government workers and the public industries would naturally be exempt, some pigs being more equal than others, and besides, it takes a lot of work to engineer a societal overhaul that enforces uniform misery, for which those who are successful at producing such a workable transition deserve to be specially rewarded for all their intensive mental labor!) into a show of social compassion.
It is not.
Income inequality is wealth redistribution; it provides no incentive for hard work, for industry, for innovation; it is inherently anti-individualistic in that it seeks by diktat to factor out differences in risk, mental acuity, luck, perseverance, specialized skill sets, and most importantly, social value that corresponds to economic value — even as its staunches proponents find ways to adjust what comes to count as “inequality” by rewarding certain preferred industries over others that market forces have made more profitable and viable.
It is central planning and the dehumanizing of the individual. It is a plan by a ruling class to redefine people as controlled economic units — shuttling cubicle zombies — and by so doing, create and enforce homogeneity and remove the human drive from humanity, replacing these drives with resignation to subjugation and the enforced “equality” of people who, because they are different and because they are individuals, are inherently unequal in thousands of ways.
It is in fact this inherently inequality of people that drives liberty and industry. So the trick of the left has been to conflate equality as a condition of outcome with social justice, while demonizing the equality that is designed into our laws and meant to protect and nurture our liberty and pursuit of happiness, namely, equality before the law.
Up is down. Black is White. Chico truly is the Man.
And until we have representatives willing to brazenly and forcefully make the argument — instead of falling back into “us-too”-ism — we’ll continue this leftward drift.
Which, as you all know by now, I believe is by design.
But then, I’m a cynical cuss.