Ramblings on redistribution

By Eric Voliva

How can you discuss freedom with someone who believes they have a right to claim part of your labor, your intellectual property, the sum of your effortlinesand and ingenuity? Not talking about taxation specifically, but about individuals who actually believe that everyone is entitled to a portion of what everyone else creates. So, because you used your own ingenuity and designed a product / service that others need or desire, and had the vision to oversee its creation from beginning to end (entering into voluntary contracts / agreements with other individuals to supply labor / services to implement the creation / manufacturing process), you don’t deserve to fully own / possess what you have created, but instead everyone else has equal claim to it as you do? It’s nothing more than oppressive idealism based on an unrealistic dream that would force everyone to live exactly like these individuals think they should—all equally forced into a subservient existence to “The People.”

Their ideals are so full of contradictions (my favorite being that personal property–cars, homes, toothbrushes, etc…–are able to be fully owned / possessed, but any type of business / economic entity can only be possessed by the commons, aka: The People) that there is no logic to it. The only argument they make is basically that people can own things, but these things must be allotted to them equally and only for personal consumption, therefore everything you own has been taken from others and redistributed to you and everyone else, just as what you have created has been taken from you and redistributed to everyone else. So, you can own things, but only what they have taken from others (or others have “voluntarily” offered). And, hey, feel free to trade these things amongst each other, because everyone already has the exact same thing you have anyway. Yeah, that’s exactly the picture of an existence that screams individuality and diversity.

When a person creates a machine or devises a type of system in his spare time that performs better than the current way, and produces enough for him to store an extra supply for when the time comes that things are hard to come by, would that person have to hand over the extra supply or the machine to be equally distributed also? What if a guy plants a small garden in his yard, and cans the fruits and vegetables from it? Does he also have to “voluntarily” turn over his canned food to be redistributed? Where is the line drawn private and public property? Who draws that line? What is the amount of personal property one can possess before it crosses that line? Who makes that call? Do you get sent to prison if you refuse to give up your possessions? There are just too many questions that lead to far too many contradictions, or else lead to answers that involve force and theft.

And there is little room for art in this structure, because how do you value art, and who gets to possess it? Who says this type of art is worth a day’s labor, and who makes the decision of just how much art they have to provide in order to equal a day’s work like everyone else who actually works in the fields or in the factories? Movies, music, theater, paintings, sculptures, etc…, what is the “value” of it and who decides how to distribute it? Would the person who works his fingers bloody in the mines or in the fields all his life get the exact same equal distribution as the guy who spends his life inside the comfortable air-conditioned confines of a film studio or painter’s loft or bureaucrat’s office? Who would want to become a miner or field worker then? Wouldn’t you have a long line of people pushing to get a cushy job instead of working his ass to the bone at a nightmare job just to get the same distribution of property as the other guy? Where’s the incentive to do the dangerous and filthy jobs that no one wants to? And since we can’t have a society consisting of nothing but artists and bureaucrats, who makes the decision to force these other unfortunate people against their will to work in the fields or in the mines? Isn’t that just another form of slavery? Do this job for the rest of your life and you get to eat and have a place to sleep–yeah, that’s nothing like slavery at all.

This type of existence seems like a mind-numbing, soul-sucking, hive-mind, slavery nightmare. We are all unique individuals driven by our own unique desires, but if we lived in a communist type of world, then we would all be forced to live our lives as “equally” miserable as everyone else–there would be no hope for any type of better existence. And the absence of hope is despair… Imagine for a moment that there was no hope at all in your life, that you were stuck forever in every bad situation you are currently in. Yeah, that’s what I would consider a nightmare.

Communism sounds bad in theory, but it’s even worse in practice. You want to work toward a truly better existence? Refuse to do business with all banks and with all businesses who abuse their employer-employee relationships, and do away with government restrictions on private property usage and annual property taxation which forces the individual into the role of “employee” (servant), and allow the individual the option to carve out a life of their own outside of the government-corporate system of slavery and live by their own labor. By allowing the individual that option to exist outside of the government-corporate system of economic servitude, you restore the balance of power between the employee and employer, thus effectively curbing these abusive relationships of lopsided power. When the employee is able to legitimately claim that they can and will walk away from this “job” (because they can exist outside of the system and without being forced to exchange their labor for money in order to survive—survival, or a self-sustaining existence, is the key to this) once it becomes abusive or the balance of powers shifts unfairly to the “employer”, then the employer is forced to eliminate the abuse in order to retain the employee—balance is restored. This is a true capitalist free-market system. What we live under today is corporatism, or as you more likely know it: fascism—a government-corporate marriage that exerts control over a nation’s economy through laws and dependence on a national currency for survival, thus forcing the “employee” into the role of servant. True capitalism maintains a balance of power between all economic entities through a free market system, which, by definition, is devoid of all government regulation (because government regulation, or laws, always favor one side over the other, thus shifting the balance of power unfairly toward one party over the other, and an unfair balance of power means one side is able to abuse the other—servitude.)

When you take away a person’s ability to provide for their own survival, whether it’s through laws and restrictions or through monopolizing natural resources, or both, you force that individual to seek means for survival that are dependent on other entities–government and/or corporations. This is how a free society becomes an oppressive society. This is why more and more people feel trapped in an abusive job and become desperate for anything different, and they usually turn to whatever system promises them whatever they want to hear–they usually turn a blind eye to the contradictions and negative aspects to these systems because they feel so desperate to escape their lives that they don’t want to face reality, they just place all of their hope in change, even if it isn’t better, it’s just different than the misery they feel trapped by. It’s important to discuss the details and reality of ideals, especially when it involves forcing others against their will (which should never be an option under any circumstances in a free society) so that it doesn’t end up worse than the situation you’re currently in. Don’t let fear influence or dictate your thoughts and actions.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Leave a Comment

Filed under civil rights, Indieregister, Philosophy, Politics

Leave a Reply