PostHeaderIcon A Fair Share

Note that we are just returned from a 10 day sojourn in New Hampshire, during which I acted like a tourist rather than a “rantist”. As you might imagine, after that long with no venting, I have several pent-up rants. Here is the first…

As the Obamanation goes into full campaign mode, he is again overusing my least favorite term – “Fair Share”. While the term must sound good to the losers, the stupid and the alleged “have-nots”, what does it really mean?

First, let us visit the definition of the two words that comprise the term:

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the adverb form of “fair” as:

1: in a manner that is honest or impartial or that conforms to rules : in a fair manner <play fair>

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the noun form of “share” as:

1 a : a portion belonging to, due to, or contributed by an individual or group

I combine these definitions for “fair share” to generally mean: “a portion of something that rightfully/legally belongs to someone”.

If you dispute my generalization, please respond and explain why. Otherwise, what follows is based on that generalization.

The most vexing thing about the notion of a “fair share” is, who determines what is “fair”? Once, we relied on common law to determine such things with the usual result that one’s fair share of anything was that portion that one produced or earned using legal and ethical means. Thus, one’s “fair share” of any given thing might be as much as all of it or as little as none of it.

Today, the law has been perverted to the point where common law (like common sense) no longer prevails. In a word, the constitutional protection of an individual’s right to his/her property no longer exists. Today’s law implies that, in essence, all property is common property… and, we are quickly moving toward making this an actual fact of law, not a mere implication.

For instance, one of the Obamanation’s favorite mantras is that the wealthy do not pay their “fair share” of taxes. We know, in fact, that the wealthy among us pay most of the income taxes collected in the United States while the alleged “have-nots” (about 50% of our population) pay none.

Yet, the Obamanation insists the wealthy should pay more – much more. For this to be even remotely “fair”, it must be a fact that the wealthy do not actually OWN their wealth, that they are simply managing it for its real owner, the collective. The implications of this should be terrifying to us – far more so that the minor threat that some religious nut might blow something up.

These implications include:

→ That each of us no longer has a right to the products of our own labor, whether they be from sweat, from innovation, from good management, from risk taking, or from anything that is honorable, legal and ethical.

→ That some among us have a valid claim on the products of others, even though they made no contribution whatever to their production. Their claims to their “fair share” come from their wants and needs, not from their industry or contributions.

Clearly, what is described above could be simplified by imposing a single rule: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs”.

Sadly, there may actually be people reading this who have no idea that the above is a direct quote from an infamous book – a book that is rapidly replacing our own founding documents as the basic principles by which we are governed.

Sadder still, it is almost impossible for the few remaining American patriots to confront and dispute the madness of our current system because, while we thought we were guarding our essential liberties, we let the Marxists/progressives/socialists pervert our language and destroy our educational system to the point where the masses do not even know for sure what the language of politics really means. Now we find ourselves in a world where:

→ Getting your “fair share” means using the power of government to pillage your fellow citizens, seizing things that you have no right to whatever except through the machinations of governments that have gone out of control.

→ Giving your “fair share” means having the power of government used to confiscate that which you have honestly, legally and ethically earned for yourself and your family.

→ Being at liberty means living in a system where every significant decision affecting your life is made by bureaucrats.

→ Where “rights” are manufactured by governments rather that being ours by nature.

→ Where our national “wealth” is based on endless debt.

→ Where “safety” and “security” are based on police-state tactics.

→ Where “patriotism” means supporting a constant state of unjustified wars.

→ Where countries that are ruled by the most vile dictatorships have “democratic” as part of their name.

During the aforementioned trip to New Hampshire, we took a day trip to Newport, RI where we toured some of the famous mansions (or “cottages” as they were were called back in the day), particularly, those belonging to the Vanderbilt family. As many of you will know, the Vanderbilts were the Waltons of their day. While there is no question that their mansions were opulent beyond imagination, and far beyond what most of us could ever, in our wildest dreams, expect to own, I had to ask myself whether there was anything wrong with their having been built – and used in such lavish fashion.

I suppose that, were I prey to the trap of wealth envy, I could have found many reasons to object. Instead, I saw them another way. First, such fine buildings must have greatly enriched many a craftsman who needed and appreciated the opportunity to create as well as to earn. Looking at the numbers of staff needed to maintain and operate these places, I imagined many who might otherwise have had to labor in the mills and sweatshops. Then there were those lucky caretakers who got to live in such surroundings the year ’round (while the Vanderbilts enjoyed the properties only a few weeks at a time).

Indeed, rather than condemn such as these mansions, I regret that we live in a time where human talent is so rarely used to create such beauty and majesty. It is not like we do not have enough idle human hands available. Instead, today we reward them for NOT producing anything.

As for the Vanderbilts themselves, many called them “robber barons”, while never making it at all clear who they robbed and how. What I know of them is that they created huge industrial concerns that employed (and enriched) many thousands of people over the years. Why ever should such activity be condemned, even if a few got very wealthy in the process?

It should serve as a stern reminder to us all that the age that produced the mansions of Newport, Long Island and elsewhere was ended when the true “robber barons” took control of the nation and imposed their confiscatory income taxes on all of us.  In other words, when “fairness” took over.

When Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the British Army played “The World Turned Upside Down” while his troops stacked their weapons. Our founders proceeded from there to establish a near miracle. We have mishandled that miracle and the world, once again, has turned upside down.

I look into the near future with sadness because I do not see a new group of learned people who will set it upright again anytime soon.

I hope I have made your day. I know that I feel better now. Thank you.

Troy L Robinson


2 Responses to “A Fair Share”

  • Daedalus says:

    Yes Troy, unfortunately the barbarians are inside the gates and are “home grown.” I call them barbarians because they lack civility as well as knowledge. Our founding fathers lived in a mileiu characterised by the thought of Locke & Hobbes. (I am not endorsing either)
    From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyon Locke:
    “For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke’s anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare.”
    From the same source, Hobbe’s view on anarchy:
    “dissolute condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” would make impossible all of the basic security upon which comfortable, sociable, civilized life depends. There would be “no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” This last sounds to me to be the end result of the collectivist barbarians.

  • Troy says:

    “continuall feare, and danger of violent death;”

    Is that not the situation today, what with the overblown hype over terrorism, the “war” on drugs, the series of real wars in Islamic lands that beg them to retaliate in any way they can — probably with nuclear weapons.

    Then there is the very real fear of economic collapse, brought upon us with intent and purpose.

    Yes, my friend, our current “shepherds” are quite skilled at herding us toward our own destruction.

    Baa, baa!


Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►