A Polite Response

After reading “What are texas good for?” by American Politics and Other Such Nonsense, I felt very much in accord with the general argument; pinpointing the negative effects of large corporation and the unrelenting misdistribution of wealth.

Certainly government regulation has never been so needed for the taming of the not-so-gentle giants that command most of the nation’s capital. However, has the government really gotten too big, or just off balance? Also, if balance were to be restored, what would be the balance? Most Americans these days cry for federal intervention to promote closing the income gap, but would those same people be willing to sacrifice the necessary freedoms to avenge their paycheck? If taxing those with wealth, especially those who made it themselves, is the answer, what will be the product? There was once a saying in this country that one has to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps”, which did a fair job of capturing the independent and self-made spirit that this nation was founded on.

 The beauty behind capitalism is that everyone, rich or poor, has the right to property, prosperity, and wealth. Those who prosper have the privilege of owning more or nicer stuff which can be translates to wealth. In a socialist society this is not the case. Those who prosper have the privilege of having to taken away by government to allow for those who don’t to have more or nicer stuff, which can be translated to no wealth.

This is no way a defense for the structure and operations of the current economic monarchy, simply a revision of the alternative’s reality. If knowing that your next business decision could lead to a million dollar profit in one year, but that 85% of that profit would be collected by the government and distributed back amongst the poor; or instead lead to a hundred thousand dollar profit over 10 years in which the percentage that you keep is much higher, and the “wealth” that is distributed would be consequently much less, which would you do? I’m not saying that one would chose the latter simply out of greed or to intentionally prevent others from benefiting from your prosperity, but is it really fair for those who cannon prosper on their own to claim entitlement to your? I don’t think so. Obviously some economy engineered, people powered, hybrid of the two systems would be the most ideal solution.

To build an economy in which the rich were required to partake in the government and overall processes in a positive way, but not via an indiscriminant tax that strips away the incentive to become great.