More about equal distribution of wealth

I know these comments are not going to be well received by many, but I am not trying to talk anybody down. I admire and respect the fact that we might have different opinions.


Just recently I read an article about this topic and decided I just can not let it pass without a reply.


I do not believe in equal distribution of wealth because it not only has been historically proven not to work, but also, I believe that it is a grave mistake. I would like to clarify first that the idea of helping others (to me) is not only a matter of “doing something good" but rather a matter of obedience to God. God’s nature is the one of a giver, and He teaches us that as individuals created in His image we do well in giving to others who have less than we do.


That said, I also understand that we live in a corrupt world, fallen from the original design that God intended for us. The sinful nature of man makes it impossible for us to live in a perfectly “balanced” world. However, God also gives us guidelines to live by and behave within the different social layers of this imbalanced society.


The idea that government should take the role of balancing the wealth among individuals is not fair neither has it worked. It does not make any society better because of the nature of man. That does not mean that we are doomed, certainly there is hope and things we can do, but that hope is not government.


The role of government is not to take from those who have more so that it can be given to individuals who have less. Government is not to force social ideologies or religion in any way. The hypocrisy of equal distribution of wealth being controlled by the state (Marxism) is that a few men decide what is best for the rest of the nation and thus impose on the many an ideology. Now, how is that equal if not all of us believe it is right? If you have any doubts, look at the Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, communist Vietnam, etc... All perfect examples of tolerance, freedom of speech, harmony, balanced economy, respect of privacy and religion, respect for human rights, and so forth... RIGHT?!


If something has been true about the examples above it is that government has spread equal damnation and poverty, not wealth leaving only a few in power who are controlling the nation’s wealth.


I think it is our duty as INDIVIDUALS to help others, donating our money and time to greater causes as much as we can, after one has taken care of his/her own family first. Private organizations and non-profit organizations historically have done a much better job reaching out in these ways than any government institution.


It is, however, perfectly fine for government to assist not only nations, but also individuals in times of great need (ie. In a time of natural calamity, etc.), which the U.S. has historically done better than others. I cannot say the same about our socialist European ”friends” for the most part.


We need the government to provide security, equal opportunity, and stability. We do not want it to babysit us, tell us what to wear, study, buy, or drive. Most especially, we do not want a government that decides when you have made enough money and now it is time to start taking it from you at an arbitrary rate (income redistribution). I am no rich person myself; in fact, I am far from it. However, if some of my friends become CEOs and make millions of dollars a year because of their effort and hard work, I will only applaud it and send them my resume ;-). Better, for them and those they can give jobs to. I hope that they become great givers then. That is the ultimate goal.


I didn’t always see things this way and it took me a while to detox my thinking, but it was clear to me after a few years in America, legally I might addJ, and saw the benefits of living in a country were hard work and determination can make the difference. Even with its flaws, this is a great place to live.


In conclusion, work hard and make a lot so you can give a lot. The role of government is to make it equally “possible” for every one, but not to dictate how is all going to happen. Otherwise, it becomes oppression.

About personal responsibility and equal distribution of wealth

This topic has been mentioned on and on lately these days in the news. But what exactly is personal responsibility? For what I have been able to read and see in the news lately, Barak Obama took some heat from some left wing movements for “daring” to suggest that Americans ought to have personal responsibility.

But what exactly is personal responsibility and why I think Barak doesn’t get it. Personal responsibility in the context of being able to live a decent life as a good American citizen is the understanding that you alone are accountable to both self and country to do whatever is in your hands, to morally, and righteously put your best effort to achieve your own goals, and abide by the law of the country. This means you are mainly responsible for taking care of yourself, not the government. That is truth regardless of where you live.

The problem with this is “Where do you live?”

Let me explain. If you live in a country where the manner your education is delivered, the choices for health care, how many children you can have, the type of fuel you put in your vehicle, and even the type of vehicle you can drive, how much money you can make before they decide you need to be taxed relatively much more than others, etc… then your personal responsibility is hindered. It might not mean much in some cases.

In that scenario I still have personal responsibility. The problem with it is that my best effort is always going to be truncated by a government decisions that overrule what I can achieve under the mantra of equality. …Right!

Equal possibility means that both you and I have the same chance at aiming for the same goal. But if at the end it turns out I exercised personal responsibility and aimed better than others, the outcome doesn’t make it unfair for any of the parties.

The role of the government is then to make things possible and fare for all Americans and law abiding citizens and residents, not only a few. The other side of it is that no citizen should be kept from achieving higher possibilities, and if we choose a president that will govern with the mindset of getting a much bigger cut from you because you make over $200k, he is not making it fare for you. Math tells me that if you make 200k and I make 50k and we both pay 25% of taxes, you are already paying into the economy more taxes than I do. 4 times more, to be exact.

One of the things I like about this country is that I am free to achieve, and I don’t want an American government to become what I know of other countries. I am free here to live where I want, go where I want, drive what I want, and buy what I want, given my possibilities because the government doesn’t hinder my ability to do those things, thus my personal responsibility and effort pays back.

That’s why Obama’s equal distribution of wealth is not really “equal” and it never will be. If he understood personal responsibility, he will know that. Punishing American companies for being successful is an error and it has socialism written all over it. What now? Do we need to take money from law abiding Americans that invested their moneys in Exxon just because Obama thinks it is too much money (windfall profits). That is the stupidest thing I heard. There is no mathematical or economic sense to that.