Posted by
Weisshaupt on Monday, October 05, 2009 4:11:41 PM
I have had quite a few Liberals suggest to me that if a society is allowed to become “unbalanced” with “Haves” and “Have-Not”s that the “Have-Not”s would eventually rise up and threaten the “Haves” and therefore wealth redistribution was “in the best interest of the wealthy” because it prevents an disorganized angry Mobs of “Have-nots” from descending upon their home and looting it. (This is standard Marxist theory, though few Liberals will admit to that)
Of course, liberals, who claim to speak for that Mob , say if the wealthy pay protection money to them, they can prevent the Mob of “Have-Nots” from arriving. This is really just the difference between organized crime, and the random acts of petty thieves. Organized Crime Syndicates systematically “shake down” their targets, threatening them with violent crime if they don't comply with their demands. With this argument, Liberals are really just suggesting that the Government become the principle agent of force in an organized crime ring, shaking down the productive, responsible citizens and handing out “favors” in return for promising to do a “favor” at the polls. Our governments were originally instituted to prevent Crime and protect property, not to facilitate its theft and aid in finding supplicants to help grow the criminal enterprise. Liberals advocate the use of criminal force, disguised as the legitimate operation of a government collecting taxes, as the means of collecting the protection money, and ironically call those who object “selfish.” A criminal operation cannot be legitimized by claiming a majority voted for it, when the voters who did were paid to do so from the profits of the ring. The Democratic Party is the Party of the Mafia, and that is the Mob we should be worried about - the petty thieves can wait.