"Unfortunately, it is not in the power of government to make everyone more prosperous. Government can only raise the income of one person by taking from another."
Hans F. Sennholz (1922 - 2007)
Austrian-school economist Hans Sennholz understood that gubment has a lot of power.
But, as an economist, he understood that it only goes so far.
It is not powerful to take. It is powerful to be able to set the rules so that the taking can "legally" happen! Especially under the guise of "doing good."
But what happens when gubment redistributes "wealth" with impunity, penalizing those who would not want to participate but create wealth instead?
IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
- If money is taken, even if a small but ever-increasing percentage, from working people for, say, the medical care of "the elderly," (and the definition of medical care and "the elderly" changes all the time), and so much is transferred that the "program" is continually going broke, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
- If money is taken, even if a small but ever-increasing percentage, from working people for, say, the medical care of "the poor," (and the definition of medical care and "the poor" changes all the time), and so much is transferred that the "program" is continually going broke, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
- If money is taken, even if a small but ever-increasing percentage, from working people for, say, their "security" in "supplementing" their "retirement," (and the definition of how this money is set aside, "invested," what and who it is spent on, and and all the rules implemented to get the "program" started are broken, and what "retirement" means, changes all the time), and so much is transferred that the "program" is continually going broke, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
- If money is taken, even if a small but ever-increasing percentage, from working people for, say, the "general welfare" of a "needing" sector of the population (and the definition of "general welfare" and the "needing" sector of the population changes all the time), and so much is transferred that this "needing" sector STAYS a "needing" sector for generations and learns to expect such monies in ever-increasing amounts, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
- If money is taken, even if a small but time-after-time amount, from working people for, say, the "bail out" of a sector of the economy to "save the world from disaster" (and the definition of "bail out" and "disaster" changes all the time), and that transfer helps to enrich that sector at the expense of the rest of the population, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
And all of these wondrous "programs" are scammed and scammed and scammed to the point of ridiculousness!
I could go on with the above bullets, now couldn't I!?
What we need instead is to be released and unfettered from the "wisdom" of the gubment takers so that we, as a people and creative operators can create wealth, and make the pool larger and deeper, with more and more for all.
GUBMENT DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH. GUBMENT DOES NOT ENLARGE THE POOL. GUBMENT DOES NOT MAKE THE POOL DEEPER. IF ANYTHING, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE. ONE WONDERS IF THAT IS NOT THE GOAL OF THIS GROUP. TO MAKE THE POOL SMALLER AND SHALLOWER, WITH MORE AND MORE PEOPLE TRYING TO SWIM IN IT?
Wealth transfer IS NO DIFFERENT THAN TAKING WATER OUT OF ONE END OF A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE OTHER END - OF THE SAME POOL!
Get real people. Vote smart.
Comments(20)