Wednesday, August 15, 2001

Dave Hamrick and Timothy Parker would probably agree on most subjects if they would both cut through the political rhetoric. Timothy, I think Dave was joking about Americans being better off than slaves and worse off than serfs (have you ever read Mark Twain?). Dave, be decisive. If you think we need to set a level of government spending, tell us specifically what you would cut. Don't leave it to others in the distant future, and don't make platitudes.

What needs to be said on the subject of class warfare and the corresponding level of taxation needs to be said in plain English. Throughout history the upper class exploited the lower classes through slavery, serfdom, and regressive taxes (i.e., Egypt under the Pharaohs or Bourbon France under King Louis); this is indisputable.

In the last century in many countries, the under class has exploited the overachievers of the upper class through socialism and the progressive tax system; this is also plainly clear. Both extremes are wrong morally, wrong economically, and wrong politically.

It is immoral for one man, through force, to confiscate another man's income or assets in order to subsidize his existence. Exploiting serfs for crops and exploiting rich people for social welfare transfer payments are equally wrong. In the long run everyone, with very few exceptions, must be responsible for their own station in life (they must pull their own weight). We must each reap the rewards of our successes and pay the price for our failures.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, I am certain that they would agree with this moral position. I don't understand why modern American leaders are not addressing the class issue in clear, moral terms. Unless, of course, they are merely exploiting the issue to get and stay elected (i.e., fear-mongering and vote-buying).

Feudal societies and socialist societies are both extremely inefficient. The fact is people work the hardest when they are working for themselves. Greed is good! Few serfs ever weeded their feudal lord's peas as well as they weeded their own patch, and few entrepreneurs ever risked their capital and started a company if they expected 70-percent taxation.

Capitalism, combined with a limited government in the form of a constitutional republic, is the only system that has ever worked efficiently. This is a fact. Limited government and unlimited capitalism worked for hundreds of years both here and in other countries. So why are we now changing to socialism? Justice for the common man? Looks more like a power grab to me.

Socialistic societies and feudal societies are both unstable politically (i.e., the French revolution, the Russian revolution, etc.). Both systems have always collapsed or been overthrown in the end. When one group unjustly claims possession of another group's assets or income, the other group tends to revolt or fight back by other means. Only when each person settles for his own earned income does society stabilize. This is because people who are focusing on working hard, studying hard, and living within their means don't tend to covet their neighbor's belongings as much as people with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

If one person must support other people in society, the support should be voluntary, minimal, and temporary. It should not be done by government, especially on the federal level (for obvious reasons). It should be done through charity.

Dave, the appropriate level of government is that which is minimally necessary to do things like protect the country from invasion, police the country for criminals, reasonably regulate polluters, maintain road and water systems and very little else. The appropriate level of taxation is that which allows the vast majority of Americans to pay their fair and equal share (pay their own way, go Dutch, etc.). Taxation should be neither progressive or regressive.

We need government only for what we cannot do for ourselves. For our general welfare, not our individual welfare. This level of government was plainly spelled out in the Constitution, and it was plainly clear to our forefathers. Why is it no longer clear to modern Americans?

As for the classes, the lower classes need the upper class for their capital and superior intellect. The upper classes need the more numerous lower classes for their labor. This is plainly clear. It is also plainly clear people can move up or down the ladder depending on their ability. So if the classes need each other and are both open to new members, why should they fight?

If we keep going down the road to socialism and keep fueling class warfare, we will eventually be at each other's throats. I am talking about class violence, economic malaise, and even possible a second civil war (war between classes is far nastier than war between regions). We all need to lighten up on political rhetoric, speak plainly, stay out of each other's wallet, and take personal responsibility for ourselves.

Bill Gilmer

wmgilmer@mindspring.com

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page