Category Archives: Free enterprise

Benevolence versus Tyranny

Benevolence versus Tyranny

Some would have you believe that “they are here to help”.  They wax poetic of the injustices of things, and demand others pay up for the unfairness of it all.
Hmmm…

Che "loved all" and killed any who disagreed.
The “spread love” murderer.

It brings up an interesting question:  How much are they giving to their favorite charities?
You see, I too have a great interest in feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, and helping those in need.  But here is the difference:  For 2016, my wife and I gave 23.1% of our adjusted gross income away.  23.1%.
For our taxable income, we gave 66.5% of our income away.  66.5%.
On an actual income basis, meaning no games,  we gave away 34.4% of our gross income.  34.4%.  That is NOT including taxes.  Just the money we gave to charity.

Who's money is it anyway?
Who’s money is it anyway?

We put our money where our heart is.  Our money.  Not your money.  We do not DEMAND that you put your money where our heart is.  That is our job, not your job.

Which begs a question: How much do my socialist friends give to charity?
You see, when you give to charity or directly to others, it is an act of kindness.  It is an act of benevolence.
But, when you do not give to charity, but demand that others give to you or to the charity YOU choose, that is not benevolence.  

When giving is demanded.
When giving is demanded.

Can you see the difference?

I find it interesting how often I hear the very folks who are DEMANDING that others “give” to them, talking about how those others are “greedy.”
Indeed.  Who is greedy?

You see, socialism seems a lot like altruism.  “We are just trying to help…”
Uh huh.   

Here is a social model to consider:  What if the plan was that you should work hard to improve your situation, and then, you would have the option to give to others?  

People giving freely
People volunteering without demand, because that is what VOLUNTEERING is.

Right now, my friends on the left are squealing that those “greedy” jerks won’t give their money away.
Perhaps.
But the real reason that they presume that others will not give their money away, is because my socialist friends do not give their own money away.  So, they presume that no one else will either.
Revealing, don’t you think?

To the socialist, it is an act of high honor to demand money from others.
This is the very nature of a racket.
This is false benevolence.
False kindness.
Indeed, it is tyranny.
A real gift is given, not demanded.  If you want to help the world, go and do it.  If you want to create tyranny, demand others do it.
Pretty simple really.

So, you see, I really do want to help others.  I do that by giving a high percentage of my income to various charities, and directly to people in need.  Charities and people of MY choice.
This allows me to hold those charities and people accountable.
We look for charities that do demonstrably great work, and are very good stewards of their assets.
Or, we look to give to people who are really trying to better themselves.  Helping them get to a point of stability in their lives where they can become self sustaining.  Eventually, they can become givers as well, giving back in the way they think is best.
Could there be a more perfect form of democracy?  You decide what you will give to, and I will decide what I will give to.
With socialism, there is NO accountability, which is how we end up with disasters like Venezuela, or the Veterans Administration. No accountability.

With socialism, some bureaucrat decides how much money is demanded, and where that money goes.  So why would we think that a bureaucrat would not simply line their own pockets, or those of their friends?
Why is it, my socialist friends, that you think that some government bureaucrat is just going to be a good person, with no evidence to show that they are, and no accountability to ensure that they are, no reason for them to be, and no example of that in history?

Communists showing their nonconformity.
Nice matching outfits, you need only comply.

My giving actually DOES feed people.  Real people, who come to the food pantry and get food for their family in need.
I know I am doing a real good that is helping people in real need.
I feel happy to do it.
I want to do it more, and the folks that get that food are truly grateful for the gift.  They may even think that one day, they will give to the pantry, and help others the same way they were helped.  And thus, this design expands naturally and in a positive, elective and free way.

With socialism, invariably the “giver” is forced, and the “receiver” becomes dependent, and demanding, which turns the “gift” into an “entitlement” for the receiver and a burden for the giver.   This puts the entire giving process on its head.  It is turned upside down, where the receiver DEMANDS the gift, and the giver becomes a slave.
What could possibly go wrong?
Perhaps the “giver” will figure out that they are being made the fool, and simply stop producing.  Why should they continue to produce?
The givers (or producers) are demonized, because it helps the bureaucrats maintain control and justifies the constant taking, and the takers are elevated.
So why not just become a taker?
And then the producer group gets smaller.
This leads to a reduction in production.
And that leads to forced labor.
This is exactly what ALWAYS happens with socialism which is why socialism always fails.  

No government or Total governemnt
We want no government ..urr, total control by OUR government. And violence to boot!

One does not claim benevolence by demanding the fruits of other’s labor.
One is benevolent by giving of their own labor.
Socialism is an evil construct wrapped up in a false claim of kindness.
It is not kindness.  It is simply a stealthy evil, which is the most powerful kind of evil.  

You will know them by the fruits of their efforts.
Socialism is the greatest mass murderer in history.

So, I ask my socialist friends to share their giving, as I have above.  How much did YOU give away last year?  Because here is the catch:  When you really do give, you realize that you do not need some huge bureaucracy to manage that giving.  You can give all you can give without some government official controlling it at all.  

So why not just give?

TEST: Selling Portable Generators

A test on the selling of generators:

At the time of the early aftermath of hurricane Katrina, two young men in their early twenties heard that there was a dire need for portable generators in the destruction zone.  These two men purchased two generators, loaded them into the back of a pickup truck, and drove down to the area.  They sold the generators for $5,000.00 each.

generator

 

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

Question

 

Most people have a knee jerk reaction to this that is something like:

“That is TERRIBLE!  They are just taking advantage of people when they are in their greatest need.   Jerks!”

But here is the thing:  They found a need.  They filled the need.  They were very well compensated for their efforts.  Nobody forced the buyers to purchase or pay that price.  And most importantly, two folks, and likely those around them, now had access to generated power that was not available to them before.

It reminds me of when I was a young boy, and I saw a man talking on a phone in the back seat of what was clearly a VERY expensive car.  I told my mom about it, excited that I saw someone talking on a PHONE in the back of a car!  How on earth did he get that?  Every phone at the time was tied to a line, and you could get a REALLY long cord that might let you get 20 feet from the base, but nobody had a phone in their car.  Well, almost nobody.  It was about 1972.

Now, how much do you think that man paid to have that phone in his car?  I would guess anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 per year in 1972 dollars.  So, was that not fair?  Should we have kept him from having a phone because nobody else had one?

But then something amazing happens…The technology improves.  Folks compete.  The cost comes down.  And today, some grade school kids have phones, and most Junior High kids have phones.  And those kids’ phones have GPS, mapping, texting, any number of video games, and even stock trading.

That man back in 1972?  His phone allowed him to talk to people. It didn’t even have a clock.

Similarly, those young men made a great profit on their generators, but others heard about it, and the competition was on.  You can bet that folks were very willing to put in the effort to meet that need, and at a lower price.  So, like the phone example, some  early buyers paid a pretty high price, and the costs came down, and the demand was met, and the market balanced out.

Free markets are a GOOD thing.  It is up to the buyer and seller to determine the value of a product or service.  It is not up to us unless we are a party to the transaction, and it is certainly not up to the government.  Because all that would have happened if we followed our knee jerk reaction and made it illegal to “take advantage of people,” is that the two folks that were willing to pay the high price would not have had their generators, and the market for generators would have been slowed down or stopped completely, so folks would have gone without the generated electricity for a longer period of time.  All because someone who was not a party to the transaction decided that they should be the transaction’s ultimate arbiter.

Free enterprise rocks.