Manny Montes: Choose capitalism
September 5, 2018
The 2016 Socialist candidate for president, Emilio Soltysik, said he would like to see a 70 percent tax rate, stating, "Let say you make one million dollars, if you were taxed at 70 percent, if you can't get by on 300,000 dollars, in a country where so many …" blah, blah, blah.
Or Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) saying Americans must abandon "this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it." Or philosopher Noam Chomsky insisting that "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together, and diminishes the sense that people have responsibility for each other."
Note the undisguised tyrannical nature of these comments. The socialist will be the arbiter of what you can get by on, or confiscate wealth because you're not entitled to it, or take charge of others assets because the anointed have a better sense of responsibilities for others. In each instance, only government force can ensure compliances, which is government sanctioned theft.
Cancer essentially commits suicide, feeding on its host until the host has no more to give. So too the progressive socialist plunders the pockets of producers, dwindling their numbers until the socialist runs out of victims, and their dystopia collapses, ala Venezuela.
The proclamation that the rich must pay their “fair share” is one that demonstrates how our media fails us.
Recommended Stories For You
There is a significant aspect of the socialist doctrine that seems to be ignored by pundits. That is, how the socialist doctrine is inextricably dependent on the producers of wealth for their viability. Like cancer, feeding on healthy cells, the progressive socialist must inescapably feed, for their viability, off the producers of wealth. No if ands or buts about it. Their animal kingdom counterpart is the leech.
Once in power, their continued subjugation of producers can only be maintained by creating a class of dependents hooked on the government largess like the addict's addiction to drugs. That is, of course, as long as they still have the pockets of producers to plunder. This is morally reprehensible.
The flip side of the socialist coin is individualism dissolved into state mandated conformity, as a centralized bureaucratic force attempts to achieve equality of outcomes. This is coupled with increases in taxes and regulations. As both increase, the economy falters. This creates the potential addicts of the government largess the socialist need to stay in power. The government then becomes the chief provider of subsistence for all.
Saul Alinsky, the progressive's darling, clearly stated in his rules for radicals, "How to Create a Socialist State," the need to create this dependent class. His rule number two states, "Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live." This is common sense and also morally repugnant.
What has become of the expectation that each of us are to be self-reliant? Is there any other expectation to have of oneself and of others? The answer is emphatically no. There is only one economic system which provides the greatest opportunity for all to achieve self-reliance, and that is capitalism. The flip side of the capitalism coin is individual rights. This is the moral basis of capitalism. The right of individuals to live as they see fit with respect for the rights of others to live as they see fit.
The industrial revolution, i.e., capitalism, dramatically changed in one century the abysmal living conditions of the past thousand years. Capitalism unleashed man's productive power. Living conditions substantially improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. Human life became better and longer. In the U.S., in the short time spanning from the end of the civil war to the dawn of the 20th century, the free enterprise system made us the wealthiest and strongest country in the world; the freest country in history, rose the highest.
The unequivocal value of capitalism, i.e., individual rights has been so clearly demonstrated, but progressive (democratic) socialist must obfuscate that reality in order to gain power and support for their promised giveaways.
The proclamation that the rich must pay their "fair share" is one that demonstrates how our media fails us. How many times have we heard this?
And yet the mainstream media continuously fails to confront those making the pronouncement with the facts on whose shoulders the federal tax burden rest: the top 1 percent shoulders 40 percent, the top 10 percent, 71 percent, and the top 20 percent, 87 percent.
The bottom line is socialism is anti-life, capitalism is pro-life. Choose life.
Manny Montes lives in Auburn.