By Ted Belman
I was fascinated by Social Justice and Fair Taxes in AMERICAN THINKER.
This article questioned the unquestionable. How do we define social justice or fairness? Why is it considered fair to level the playing field, to have progressive taxation, to have affirmative action, to take from the rich and give to the poor, etc? What is fair about it? What is just about it? Law was always about protecting private property. In socialist countries it was about redistributing wealth for the greater good which in essence negates private property.
Many years ago Obama made a speech in which he said he was unhappy with the Supreme Court ruling during the civil rights fight in the sixties becuse it only upheld the right of blacks to sit at the same counter. The American Constitution he said was all about protecting the individual from government tyrrany and overreach. Instead he argued that it should be about protecting the entitlement of the individual to share in the wealth of the Nation. He wanted a Bill of Entitlements like a Bill of Rights. It should not be about protecting your freedoms but about providing for your wants. This is the transformation he is talking about. This is the transformation Palin is fighting.
The most distinguishing element between communism and capitalism is the right to private property. Ownership of property is synonymous with the pursuit of happiness. The desire for personal gain is the engine for prosperity. Snuff it out at your peril.
This is Palin’s philosophy. Liberate this desire for the betterment of all.
Having said all that, I do not believe that conservatives will ignore the needs of the poor. It will be interesting to hear as we get closer to 2012 just how the conservatives intend to provide for the needy.
I recently had a discussion with a leftist who said she admired collectivism which in essence confiscates property for the good of all. I pointed out that she thus supports totalitarianism or at least statism. In her world the state would decide what you are entitled to or not. The individual would have no right to keep but would have a right to get.
I pointed out that many years ago China instituted a one child policy. At the time she thought that it was a limitation of a woman’s rights. But I argued it was for the good of society. I also pointed out that when the Chinese government killed 2000 students in Tiananmen Square they justified it as being for the greater good. She failed to respond to both of these points which obviously left her uncomfortable.
In the end, it is all about diminishing the individual and his rights and enlarging the state and its rights. No thank you. I’ll vote for Palin.