Oxfam’s rhetoric of covetousness didn’t work

The Left-wing Oxfam group has issued a report saying that the world’s wealthiest 1% will soon own 50% of the world’s wealth…

With this in mind, read this summary of Oxfam’s press release. Variations of it are all over the Web.

…Oxfam made headlines at [the meeting of the World Economic Forum in] Davos last year with the revelation that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion people).

It said that that comparison had now become even more stark, with the 80 richest people having the same wealth as the poorest 50%.

We are now a century into the welfare state. The winners at the top are still winning, and the losers are still losing. What is Oxfam’s solution? More of the same. More government taxation of the rich. More welfare state action.

This is the rhetoric of envy. This is the politics of guilt and pity.

Quote source

North, G. (2015). Pareto Statistic: The Wealthiest 1% Will Soon Own 50% of the World’s Wealth. Tea Party Economist. Available http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/01/19/normal-pareto-statistic-wealthiest-1-will-soon-50-worlds-wealth/. Last accessed 19th Jun 2016.


Obama’s penchant for overloading the system

The idea of precipitating a collapse in the economic system as a means of introducing socialist solutions was first proposed in the mid-1960s by two Columbia University professors, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The Cloward-Piven strategy was originally aimed at the welfare system. The idea was to drive up welfare enrollments to the point where state and local governments could no longer handle the strain, and the federal government would be “forced” to take over public welfare.

Obama’s contribution to the Cloward-Piven strategy is to extend it to every area of life. In other words, if you can overload the local welfare system, why not overload local law enforcement? Why not overload the health care system? Why not overburden the immigration system by letting in hundreds of thousands of illegals? Then you can claim that all these systems are broken and have to be totally rebuilt—preferably in the image of some imaginary socialist utopia.

Quote source

Kilpatrick, W. (2015). Assuming the Worst. Crisis Magazine. Available http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/assuming-worst. Last accessed 16th May 2015.

The liberal’s lust for power explained

Part of the motivation of the liberal is to help the needy.  But another part is the lust for power which, to be retained, requires plenty of clients, plenty of dependents who can be relied upon to vote Democrat, thereby voting goodies for themselves in the short term—and the long-term fiscal and moral solvency of the nation be damned.

Quote source

Vallicella, B. (2012). The ‘Bread’ in ‘Bread and Circuses’. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/11/the-bread-in-bread-and-circuses.html. Last accessed 11th Jan 2015.

Forced health insurance is not the role of the state

Primary care physicians advise their patients to have colonoscopies starting at the age of 50. Suppose you are a healthy 27-year-old runner who thrives on a fiber-rich diet. You and Sir Thomas Crapper are on most excellent terms. Your policy does not cover colonoscopies, let us assume. Does that make it ‘crappy’? Not at all. It makes it reasonable. Why buy what you don’t need?

So what would be a crappy plan for one person might not be for another. It depends on age, sex, and other factors.

Who is to decide? Obviously, the person in question or the person’s parent or guardian. Not the government.

So here is the nub of the issue. The government has no right to force you to buy health care or health insurance (not the same, by the way), or anything else. Whether you buy and what you buy is your business. Or do you think that the citizen-state relation is or is closely analogous to the child-parent relation?

Quote source

Vallicella, B. (2013). But What if I Want a ‘Crappy’ Health Plan and by Which Standard is it ‘Crappy’? Maverick Philosopher. http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/but-what-if-i-want-a-crappy-plan-and-by-which-standard-is-it-crappy.html. Last accessed 18th Oct 2014.

The welfare state is a monument to vanity

Like the kings and dictators who preceded them, who laid waste to whole continents so they could build heroic monuments to their own vanity, modern politicians and bureaucrats use the welfare state as a costly monument to the moral vanity of their own self-proclaimed compassion.

ObamaCare is building another such monument. It will “help” millions of the uninsured by taxing them for their failure to buy health insurance through online exchanges that don’t work–and it will “help” millions of others by forcing them out of their existing health insurance and into plans where they pay more money for fewer benefits and a more restricted network of doctors.

Quote source

Tracinski, R. (2013). Ten Lessons of ObamaCare. Real Clear Markets. Available http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/11/07/ten_lessons_of_obamacare_100715.html. Last accessed 2nd Aug 2014.

Denying the authority of Scripture, denying the poor

The ‘bottom line’ is that ministries that feed the hungry are supported and fueled largely by Christians who believe that the Bible is true and accurate. A World Vision representative once told me that the vast majority of their support comes from Bible-believing churches. Even within a particular denomination split into ‘liberal’ (i.e. denying the full authority of Scripture) and conservative wings, it is the conservative branch that overwhelmingly supports the physical needs of people in poor countries. Isn’t that interesting? Liberal churches and spokesmen bleat a lot about sharing of resources with the needy. What they often mean is big governments stealing from your pocket to give to others. When it comes to actually dipping into their own pockets to give real help, they lag far behind their Bible-believing counterparts.

My two cents

English: Friendship Baptist Church - "a B...
Friendship Baptist Church – a Bible Believing Church. Bloomington, Indiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The more I read about the clash between Christianity and statism, the more I believe it; charity is a textbook example. I can think of a workmate who talks about income disparity, and when it comes to solving it, the connection is constantly made to state intervention—not to personal charity. Unsurprisingly, this workmate is anti-Christian, but it’s frustrating when Christians adopt that way of thinking as well.

It all reminds me of that book by R.J. Rushdoony called  In His Service: The Christian Calling to Charity. (And that’s personal charity!)

Quote source

Wieland, C. (n.d). ‘You should be feeding the hungry’. Available: http://creation.com/you-should-be-feeding-the-hungry. Last accessed 12th June 2012.

Conservapedia’s view on poverty affirmed

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty, yet liberals repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted.

My two cents

Poverty stands right in front of you
Poverty stands right in front of you (Photo credit: torephoto)

Yes, I think it’s true. Regarding the phrasing, it’s one thing to say that Jesus predicted it, but one can read that to mean the outcome may be uncertain. It may be more accurate to say that he prophesied it. Either way, would Al Gore admit that Conservapedia’s view on poverty constitutes an inconvenient truth?

Quote source

Conservapedia. (2011). Biblical scientific foreknowledge. Available: http://conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Economics. Last accessed 9th Feb 2011.