It is Christmas Eve and I am sitting here pondering the nature of Mr. Scrooge. Many good economists, generally those not funded by the federal government, have written lengthy essays in defense of Dicken's Scrooge character. They point out that he is involved in many good deeds as he loans money to credit-worthy individuals who then use those funds to produce goods and services for other people who are willing to purchase them. As a result of his capitalistic activities hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are raised out of poverty. In general I agree with those who believe that Scrooge has been given a bum rap when it comes to his character....almost.
According to the Bible a man should be generous. God does not specify a particular amount of money that should be given to people in need but the Bible clearly teaches that men who are generous with their money are blessed by God for being so. There is no sanction for not being generous so I could not bring any charges against Scrooge for his refusal to donate to the local charities but there is still a biblical emphasis upon the importance of being charitable.
Biblical charity is not as the world sees it. It is not indiscriminate and it is not based upon the simple fact that another human being has a need. Biblical charity is always to Christians first and it is discriminatory. The apostle Paul writes that "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat." Biblical charity never subsidizes laziness or sloth as so much of what passes for charity today does. On the other hand, the will of God for those fellow believers who are in need is clear. The apostle John writes, "But whoever has the world's goods and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" The answer is, it doesn't.
In contrast to biblical charity is the charity of the world. The charity of the world is forced upon people by government rules and regulations. The charity of the world believes there is a collective of people, always called "we" or "us" or "our," that has a moral claim on the money of the top 49% of the income population. According to the charitable principles of the world system, humble and noble people in the political majority have the moral right and responsibility to steal money from the evil and immoral members of the top 49% and distribute it to those in need, as they define need. "Need" as it is presently defined includes such things as the need for an abortion, the need for a cell phone, the need for a free college education, the need for free health care services, the need for a free high school education, the need for a free lunch and breakfast in the government school, and so on. Charity, as it is defined by the political majority, is the transfer of wealth from the evil rich to the noble poor, less 10% for handling by the federal bureaucracy that administers the program.
In the spirit of Christmas I would like to describe two effective means by which you can use the government system to plunder your neighbor, charitably of course. These two means were enshrined as economic principles by a fellow of the name of Kershner. Mr. Kershner was brought to my attention in a comment posted to my blog post of December 7th of this year. It was there, in the comment written by Mr. Motes, that I learned about Kershner's two economic laws. Let's consider them for a while today.
Kershner’s First Law
“When a self-governing people confer upon their
government the power to take from some and give to others, the process
will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.”
The key phrase in Kershner's First Law is "self-governing people." Kings, Queens, oligarchs, dictators and other assorted tyrants have always taken from one group to give to another. The political philosophy behind democracy is the errant belief that if all men are endowed with the ability to govern, by means of the vote, the ability for tyrants to oppress the people will disappear. The hidden presupposition behind that argument is that all men are basically good in nature. How many times have we encountered that patently false presupposition in this blog over the past four years? Let's set the record straight once again. Men are basically evil. All men are not as evil as they might possibly be but no man is good. Understanding the basic truth about the depravity of man enabled Kershner to postulate his first law.
Under democracy a "self-governing people confer upon their government" the power to tax. They do this by means of the vote whereby one politician is selected over another. Politicians, being even more evil than the rank and file, quickly realized that they could become career politicians if they promised to play Robin Hood once elected. Voters, being greedy, envy-filled monsters, line up to vote for career politicians who promise to tax the politically unprotected top 49% of the income population. Both career politicians and voters agree that the members of the top 49% of the income population are evil people who deserved to be forced to carry 98% of the federal tax bill each year. It is the perfect system, until it all collapses. Kershner observes that eventually the "last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare." When that happens there is nobody left to fleece and the entire system collapses upon itself.
Primarily due to the amazing propensity of capitalists to produce wealth, operating in a semi-free market burdened with excess regulations, we are still a long way from picking the last bone of the last taxpayer bare. Nevertheless, the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is well on its way to self destruction as the top 49% of the population now pays almost the entire federal tax bill. The greed of the lower 51% is insatiable. They will demand more and more freebies. They will create more scenarios in which they are being wronged by the evil rich and the evil rich will be taxed even more. So this Christmas I suggest that if you are one of the envy-filled members of the lower 51% of the income population who believes that the wealth of the top 49% really belongs to you, commit yourself to vote for career politicians like Bernie Saunders. He wants to tax the top 49% into oblivion. Good for him.
Kershner’s Second Law
history periods of sound money have been marked by moral advance and
prosperity. Conversely, periods of unsound money have been accompanied
by moral decline.”
Kershner makes an interesting observation about sound money although I am not sure, from the limited quote above, if he is attempting to describe the relationship of unsound money to moral decline as correlative or causative. As I have considered the law I believe that there is a causative function involved but I also believe Kershner has it backwards. The world I see has created unsound money because it is morally reprobate. It did not become morally reprobate because of the creation of unsound money.
Unsound money is just another term for counterfeit money which is just another term for inflation. Most people know what inflation is (an increase in the supply of money) and some people understand the vagaries by which the Fed and Treasury conspire to create counterfeit money but almost no one understands why the whole process came into being in the first place. Let me enlighten you. Career politicians needed to buy more votes from the public in order to remain career politicians but those poor career politicians realized that the amount of money needed to provide all the freebies to the people who voted for them was more than they could raise by mere taxation. In order to get more money to buy votes the career politicians concocted a scam in which a national bank was created. The national bank of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, called the Fed, exists only to loan money to Treasury which, in turn spends that money on whatever Congress tells it to. Now, if you do understand the vagaries of the Fed, you know that the Fed does not take deposits from investors. The money it loans to Treasury is money that it creates out of thin air. It is counterfeit money, pure and simple. The Fed becomes the perfect means by which politicians can spend more money than they receive in tax revenues. Thanks to the Fed we have a national debt of $18.8 trillion. Hey, it takes a lot of money to buy votes from envy-filled voters.
In Kershner's Second Law the "moral decline" part is easy. Men are totally depraved. Apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (from the Bible) no man is able to rise above his immoral nature and perform an altruistic action. Since the great majority of the citizens of the SDA have not been regenerated it necessarily follows that we are in a serious moral decline. What is a perfect example of that moral decline? The presence of counterfeit, or unsound, money.
I leave you with a single observation. Although I am prone to blame career politicians for everything wrong with this sad and immoral country the truth remains that Kershner's First Law best describes our problem most succinctly. Career politicians could never become career politicians were it not for the immoral support of the majority of the citizens of this land. As the process of transformation from a constitutional republic to a democracy has changed the fundamental nature of the SDA government, so the role of the voter-citizen has created the immoral situation under which we live today. Somewhere along the line, I think it was when women received the right to vote, voters convinced themselves that something they would never dream of doing individually (robbing their neighbors at gunpoint) was perfectly fine to do corporately (robbing their neighbors by majority vote). We are where we are today because this is precisely where the vast majority of the citizens of this land want to be. So Merry Christmas to all of you Robin Hoods out there. And Merry Christmas to all of you who vote for Robin Hood. Just remember that, as one astute theologian once said, this life is the only piece of "heaven" you will ever know.