Wealth Distribution...Where Does It End?

Redistribution of wealth. We’ve heard it all over the news recently, though it has been shouted by opponents of Barack Obama’s fiscal proposals for months now. And what has poured gas on the growing fire is a recent comment in which Obama stated, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”

Many people call it socialism or communism. Even Fidel Castro has twice verbalized his support for Obama as a candidate. And former Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis is spouted as a lifelong mentor in Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father”.

At the heart of socialism is the notion that all people should be equal, that classes of people should be eliminated. Those who have, should be taxed and robbed, and the loot should be passed on to the less fortunate in a Robin Hood fairy tale fashion.

Doing so has immense negative consequences. First, the less fortunate have no motivation to improve themselves or their input to society. Government gives them what they need. As a police officer, the majority of people I come into contact with are lazy and jobless, paying for their groceries, rent and beer with government help. They are disabled by age 20, due to their “nerves”. They are simply walking the path their parents walked. And they all know that if they were gainfully employed, their standard of living would drop. They would rent a $300 apartment instead of enjoying the $600 government subsidized apartment they currently enjoy. They would be forced to buy Natural Ice instead of Budweiser, or maybe be unable to afford alcohol of any kind. Socialism destroys their will to be meaningful in society.

A second effect of wealth distribution, is that it punishes success. Those with entrepreneurial talent or skills of high demand will have no motivation to improve their businesses. All of their hard work will be taken from them and given to others.

Laws of economics show that people naturally move into markets where their return on investment is greater. The jobless population will find new skills that are in demand and will pay better. Businesses will decrease production of goods that are in less demand, and increase production of those goods that increase profits. The motivator for every person is success. In a socialistic environment, there is no motivation besides avoiding success and reaping government subsidy.

So here is my question: If America travels down the road to wealth distribution, where will it end? How do we define wealth, or equality? Some families have three vehicles and others have none. Will excess vehicles be taken from the wealthy and given to those who must walk or use public transportation? That sounds extreme, but it is no different than Obama’s proposal. Taxing those individuals and small businesses with annual revenue greater than $250,000 may mean those individuals and businesses are unable to buy an extra vehicle. And the receivers of government help may then be able to purchase vehicles they otherwise couldn’t afford. There is simply no difference between the two scenarios.

What if we consider beauty as wealth? Surely, American society values beauty, we see that fact all around us. Will the government mar the faces of America’s “beautiful” to discourage success that may be derived or accelerated by those faces? Will the government pay for cosmetic procedures for the genetically unfortunate? And will fat be taken from America’s overweight, and put on the small population that metabolize food efficiently?

I know these ideas seem ludicrous. But it is imperative that Americans understand that people are equal in importance, and should have equal rights. That does not mean that all people are inherently equal. Some are fit to be teachers, others plumbers, yet others, CEOs. No one person is better than another. America has always prided itself as a melting pot. Socialism is simply an effort to make every person the same.