The Rich use money better than the Poor. If government wants to maximize the use of money government should give money to the rich because they will use it better than the poor. For a less strident argument see Richard Epstein’s appeaarance on PBS (Here).

Does that mean money should be taken from the poor and given to the rich? No, of course not. Taking money is freighted with moral danger. Money is needed to create and operate the government. America’s government is limited, at least that was the original idea when America was founded.  Unfortunately a long line of rule-breakers took control of the government so the limits were removed to benefit the rule-breakers. For example, government is supposed to build roads so the mail can be delivered. That’s in the constitution. Eisenhower decided to build roads to transport the military so he expanded the amount of money taken by the federal government and the Interstate Highway System was built but when it was finished the federal government kept taking money and because it had more money than it needed it decided to spend it to help politicians get elected, i.e., govenrment began to buy votes by giving money to people – in the form of benefits. A sort of nuanced approach. The unconstitutionality of taking more and more money was covered up by the simple process of saying it was needed to keep poor people alive. The false argument, – the lie, – won elections as the poor voted to keep the politicians in power  and didn’t care that they had to violate the constitution.

The lies worked because there are more poor people than rich people. The poor are a much bigger group of voters than the rich so the poor kept voting themselves more money and the government kept taking more and more to keep the votes coming. One trick was to say the rich don’t care about the poor but the Democrats do. One very bad result was the election of Barack Obama who knows how to manipulate the poor better than the Republicans. It didn’t help that the Republicans don’t know how to defend money and the Democrats know how to demonize it. The poor, and frankly most people, say they hate material things so the Democrats look like they will continue to win elections by increasing the amount of money they take from everyone, including the poor. Too many rich people agree with the Democrats because many rich really do feel guilty about their money.

Bill O’Reilly is rich beyond the ability of most people to know how rich he is but O’Reilly has little respect for his millions. He says and I believe that he accepts his own false arguments, O’Reilly says he should pay a little more to help the poor. But the poor by definition do not know much about money because they have so little money about which to be concerned. Why would O’Reilly want to give money to people who will waste it? He probably believes it’s compassionate but compassion doesn’t have to be wasteful. Why doesn’t O’Reillly give away his money himself? Why not cut out the middleman of the govenrment? Because O’Reilly is confused about money. In his mind he has come to believe that money is evil because the love of money is the source of all evil. That’s false of course because money or the love of it is neither good nor evil but people can use money in good or evil ways. For much more about money and the moral values it includes see Ayn Rands money speech in Atlas Shrugged (Here).

So even though it makes sense to give money to those who can use it better, i.e., the rich, it is immoral to take money from anyone. The taking is the problem. Government should be in the business of government, not in the business of everything. And the rich should learn about the connections between money, theft and government. So shoud everyone but the poor don’t have enough money to worry about receiving stolen money. They just want to use the money or the free cellphones or the free doctor visits. They will always want more free stuff and the people who want to win elections know how to cover-up their taking of money. It’s been like that since the Pharoah’s ruled Egypt right up to Obama taking over the doctors and the doctors remaining stupid about their money and letting it happen. That’s not to blame the doctors. They have the opposite problem with money as the poor. Doctors have so much money they don’t have to worry about it. The Prule-breakers, the politicians know that and the arguments go round and round while the govenrment gets away with breaking the rules and taking more and more. As the Raven should have said: Evermore.

Hits: 14