Pride, Envy, and Hatred of the Rich

The left's politics in many ways can be characterized by the hatred of the rich.  Instead of celebrating the people that have successfully solved the problems of the world and gotten rich from that, they seek to vilify them, take their riches from them, and prevent others from ever following in their footsteps.

This is one of the sad side effects of envy. Both envy and pride are listed among the 7 deadly sins and both result from an unhealthy comparison of the self to others. Pride looks at others and says, "I'm better than they are." Envy builds on the work of pride, by looking at the success of others and says, "Given that I'm better than they are, they must be doing something wrong, or there is some fundamental problem in the world, if they can have so much while I have so little."

These two sins serve to distract an individual from a focus on his own bad choices, negative patterns of thought, and laziness, and results in the condemnation of the successful as evil, greedy, and exploitative of the poor.  Hatred then, is the natural consequence of regularly seeing those who you deem as lower than you rise above you in wealth, status, and success.

Again, hatred is the spiritual consequence of the sins of pride and envy - and the left is consumed by it. And hatred, sadly, destroys all that it comes in contact with - including the individual who does the hating. It causes its possessors to take actions that destroy not only the lives of the people they hate, but the political systems and institutions that provided for the success of those they hate, even when those institutions are the very ones saving their own lives.

The left's pride, envy, and resulting hatred drive them to hate America, see its institutions as fundementally unfair and corrupt, and causes them to take action to destroy its foundations and replace them with systems that redistribute wealth and shackle those who seek to earn it. The person who hates cannot allow for the freedom of those they hate. That is why populism derived from anger towards the wealthy also drives a nation toward despotism and socialism. The populace hands power to the individuals or groups that promise to destroy the freedom of others to succeed. Hence, statism and socialism. Marxism is based on advancing the cause of the proletariat against the bourgeois, whom they hate for their success.

Hatred is at the root of liberalism - at the root of all human conflict. Love values freedom, both for the self, and for others. It declares a trust in God, in freedom, and in others - that as others pursue their own good, we will be okay - moreover, we'll be better off.  Hatred says, "I can't trust God, I can't trust freedom, I can't trust others." It motivates an individual to take from others their freedom in a self-destructive attempt to protect one's interests.

It is the ultimate lie propagated from the devil himself declared first in the Garden of Eden. Cast out of heaven for his own pride, envy and hatred of God, he deceived the first humans by convincing them that God could not be trusted. It was a lie then, it is a lie now. We can trust God, we can trust freedom, we can trust others.

Just in case you have been tempted into agreeing with the hatred of the successful, I want to shine some truth on the subject of the rich so that you can break agreement with such thoughts and have the freedom that comes with it.

1) When the rich succeed, they do so by solving the problems of those who buy from them. The customer is better off than prior to the transaction. Both the rich man and his customer walk away better off than they would have been without the transaction. A poor man may be resentful of the fact that he must pay a rich man for, lets say, ten gallons of gas, but that ten gallons of gas will permit the poor man to get to work, to the grocery store, home, etc. The poor man would have been much worse off if a government official had prevented his "exploitation." The same is true for all free market transactions. My life is made immeasurably better by the options I have to buy a computer, a phone, fuel for my car, a home, entertainment, clothing, energy for heat and cooling, and food. Each of these is provided by "the rich." If you prevent others from getting rich by solving these problems then you prevent them from solving these problems. 

2) When the rich build their companies, they put the rest of us to work. One person can do very little on their own. Real success comes from working with others. The rich have learned how to surround themselves with teams of people who are succeeding in their own right by virtue of their relationship with the rich. Not everyone has the vision to start a company or the temperament to manage its many facets - but their skills and strengths can be put to work by others - and both prosper as a result. The rich may have an idea for how to solve a human problem, and generate profits through that effort - but it takes the ingenuity, the labor, and the time of the people that work with him to bring that solution to the market. Both the employer and the employee are benefited by the arrangement.

3) When the rich consume, other businesses prosper. When the rich spend the money they've made, they provide income to the companies from which they buy. Rich people might buy cars, houses, airplanes, yachts, etc - but doing so employs the millions of people who serve in those industries. Vilifying the spending of the rich only hurts the people who make the products that they buy. The rich weren't hurt that much when the government put a luxury tax on yachts, the people who make them were. The rich aren't hurt that much when government tells them not to fly on private jets, but the people who fly them, who build them, who maintain them, who service them are hurt badly. The rich aren't hurt that much when everyone else complains about their visits to luxury hotels and resorts - but the people who work in those locations sure are when the rich decide to stay home instead.

3) When the rich save their money, they do so by placing it into investments that provide the capital other people need to bring their ideas to the market. The wealth accumulated by the rich does productive work in almost every capacity in which the rich choose to employ it. His incentive to save his money in some vehicle that produces returns is proof that others are benefited by that investment. A return is the evidence of value as measured by someone else. Those who pay a return on that investment are using that accumulated wealth to pursue other efforts that they believe will satisfy a market and produce profit. 

4) When the rich give away their money, the charities that receive those funds and the communities they serve benefit. While this is probably characterized by most people as the highest good that the rich can do with their money, I believe it probably brings the least good to society as a whole. It is in this arena that much good can be done, but the most harm can be caused as well. Markets reveal true human need - both in the willingness of those with the need to spend money to solve their problems and in the solutions to those problems generated by that money. Charities ideally seek to meet the needs of those who by misfortune in some form do not have the money to meet those needs on their own. I contend that in most cases, these misfortunes would be greatly minimized in a political system that defended freedom and liberty.

In sum:

When the rich succeed, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich build their companies, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich spend their money, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich save their money, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich give away their money, the rest of us benefit.

The truth is - we should be celebrating the rich and the political and economic freedoms that allowed for them. If they succeeded, we can too; moreover, their success is a testimony to how much good they have done for the rest of us. The attempt to limit their success only limits their ability to bring good to others. Normal economic cycles are the free market's response to error and the correction of those errors. Larger economic downturns are the consequence of larger errors. I believe that the severe economic downturns we've seen several times in this century are the consequence of the freedom limiting policies advanced by those filled with pride, envy, and hatred. The real solution to the world's economic problems is freedom - and freedom advances when a nation's people trust. It retreats when they are filled with pride, envy and hatred.

Is Conservation Good for Us?

For years now we've been hearing an ever growing chorus about the need for conservation. Lately the cry for recycling, using less plastic, less water, less fuel, etc. is deafening. As the volume has increased, I have grown more and more uncomfortable with this whole idea of conservation. Something just didn't seem right about it.

Whenever "everyone" is saying something I start looking for the angle. I've come firmly to the conclusion over the years that the politically correct position always has a fallacy at its core. Political correctness is a technique used to pressure people into doing something they wouldn't do on their own or isn't in their best interest. So I've been searching for that fallacy in politically correct conservationism. Here is what I've realized.

At the core of the conservation argument is the idea that mankind harms the earth by the consumption necessary in everyday living. I have long been aware of the left's belief that humanity is a parasite on the earth. In their opinion, if it wasn't for mankind, the earth would be a beautiful, pristine place. You can see this premise on display in the History Channel's recent production "Life After People" or the National Geographic Channel's "Human Footprint."

There are two aspects this position. One, that we are raping the earth by harvesting natural resources and that two, we pollute the earth when we consume them. I contend that both premises are flawed.

Resources are product of humanity, not the earth. Sure, resources come from the earth, but they are useless to us until someone converts them to a useful form. Oil was an annoyance to land owners until a human being discovered it could be used for fuel and learned how to convert it into that useful form.

This is why the "population alarmists" have it all backwards. We need more people, not less. Humanity is the world's greatest resource. The greatest threat future western nation’s face is declining populations. None of them are reproducing and are no longer having children at replacement rates.

So why conserve oil? Oil has completely changed the quality of life for millions! It has done so in every way conceivable. Every aspect of our lives is better because of what the energy in oil is able to do for us. Here is the only reason I know of to conserve oil: you want to reduce the amount of money you spend on it. For me it is a purely financial decision. As far as I'm concerned, if you have decided that consuming energy is more valuable than the money in your pocket - then you must have determined that it will improve your life or the world around you to some degree more than the money was worth. Because consuming energy has a cost - it's use must have a tangible benefit to people or else they would save the money and use it for other purposes.

The critic of my position will no doubt say that people should use less because of the resulting pollution. (The other half of the "humans are destroying the earth" premise). I believe this premise is flawed as well. Pollution is not a product of consumption; it is a product of poverty. Prosperous, free people want to live in clean environments and they will pressure polluters using any means available (product boycotts, government action, picketing, etc) to clean up their act. Compare the environment in any free, prosperous country to any socialistic, non-free country. Athletes don't even want to compete in china due to the dirty air. Poor people care about eating - prosperous people care about everything else. PC Conservationism, if it had its way, would ultimately do more damage to the environment by spreading poverty.

When we decide to conserve, we're actually saying that we will deprive another human being the opportunity to provide us with that service or product. I don't think anyone wants the public to be pressured into not to buying their product. I don't want people to conserve when it comes to the services I provide. The price and your budget will force you to conserve appropriately. If you can afford something and have determined that your life would be better off if you had it/used it, then buy it - don't let the PC police deprive you and the seller of the benefit of the exchange.

PC conservationism shames people into avoiding consuming, which really just means, stop putting your fellow man to work. Furthermore, it demonizes the people and companies that transform the world from a wild and savage place into a comfortable and enjoyable place to be.

The beauty of the free market and freedom in general is that even the laziest man is required to serve his fellowman in order to provide for his basic needs. Our hunger drives us to serve our fellowman, and the needs of our fellowman that we are able to meet with our skills, energy, and resources provide the income that satisfies our hunger.

But if you have served your fellow man, made your money, then you should feel free to use that money in whatever way you see fit. I personally give a set percentage away, save a set percentage for the future, then use the rest to provide for my family's needs and bring pleasure to our lives. The consumption I engage in at that level is healthy and right. It puts people to work providing the services that I consume.

I am not going to be guilted by the PC Conservation Police to use some resource less than my finances allow based on their belief that I'm destroying the world.

Why Democrats Will Never Support Drilling

Why do the democrats fight every single approach to lowering the price of energy? The cover of USA Today gives the answer in large bold print - "Drivers cut back by 30B miles." That in a nutshell is why you'll never find a democrat doing anything to lower the cost of driving. They don't care about what the poor pay for gas, they don't care how much high gas prices affect the price of everything else you need.

The democrats don't want you driving! They don't want you traveling! They don't want you to have a car! They don't want you buying airline tickets. Stay home. Plant some tomatoes or something.

Democrats want high energy prices. They think Americans use too much energy. They will do anything they can to drive the price up so that we get out of our cars. Their religion of global warming has convinced them that any normal human activity is destroying the environment. Since they haven't been able to convince the voters to let them ban travel entirely (like was done in the Soviet Union), they do an end-run on travel by making it so expensive that people voluntarily give up all but the most necessary travel. Democrats are celebrating because the high cost of fuel is finally causing Americans to get rid of their SUVs, causing them to take the train, causing them to get jobs closer to home, etc. They love the high price - and they love the result.

That is why every democrat solution to the high energy costs only raises energy costs. Gas prices are high - "we must pass a windfall profits tax on the oil companies!" Natural gas prices are skyrocketing - "keep our huge natural gas reserves off limits to drilling!" Electricity is more expensive than ever -"Just say No to Nuclear!" Food prices are out of this world - "We need more ethanol!" They actually use the anger over energy costs to gain the political support necessary to do more damage! And many Americans gullibly urge them on.

We actually don't have an energy crisis, we have a regulatory crisis. We've got enough energy for 150 years of abundant, cheap energy, right here in America - but our politicians have made it impossible to take advantage of it. The latest mantra is "We can't drill our way out of this energy crisis." As if saying the exactly wrong thing with conviction will make believers out of skeptics. Drilling is EXACTLY what we need to do. Energy is expensive because we don't have enough of it. This isn't complicated. In a free market, prices always move to bring into equilibrium supply and demand. Supply is low, demand is high - prices go up. We need more energy. We need to drill now. We need to build nuclear power plants.

Actually "We" don't need to do anything. These things will happen automatically if our politicians would just get out of the way! What "We" need to do is come down on the politicians until they cave in.

The thing that gets missed in all of this, by both the left and the right, is the benefit to humanity of mobility. People are willing to spend hundreds of dollars a month on their automobiles and fuel because there is GREAT, GREAT benefit in being mobile. You can drive to a job that is better than what you might be able to find within walking distance of your home. You can shop at a greater variety of stores - thereby increasing competition among those stores which increses quality and reduces price (if you are bound to the store within walking distance, they don't have to fight all that hard for your business). You can increase your business prospects, doing business with a greater circle of people. You have a wider range of dating options for the single person. A wider range of educational options. Automobile means self-movement -> Auto = self, mobile = movement. Self-movement changed America. It is good for us and our standard of living.

Aviation does the same thing nationally and globally. Shipping does the same thing with heavy materials. The ability to move ourselves and our things has done more to increase the standard of living in the western world than almost any other thing (telecommunications and effective currency are way up there too).

Mobility is ultimately about relationships. People need people. As we increase our circle of personal and business relationships - we gain access to the people who can solve the problems in our lives - whether by trading with them or talking to them. Mobility gives us access to these people.

Republicans should be standing up for freedom in the form of mobility. This is a defining issue and needs to be clearly articulated - but it is being missed unfortunately. The conservation debate is a false argument and we shouldn't be having it on their terms. Conservation is the new political correctness to end freedom of association.

Ultimately, that is what the energy debate is all about. Democrats have bought into the notion that normal human activity - people doing the things that make their lives better - destroys the earth. America was founded by people who wanted the freedom to do that which made life better. Democrats do not want us to have that freedom. And if they can't take it from you by fiat -they'll price freedom out of your reach.

Achieving Success

I heard a caller on a radio show ask this question yesterday, "So what's so wrong with socialism anyway." He made a few mindless points about taking care of people and the usual bash against successful people. As the host answered the caller, I thought of about 20 things that are "so wrong" with socialism. One thought I had related to the achievement of success.

In a free market or free enterprise system (especially one that has minimal governmental interference) those that best take care of their fellow man rise to the top. A free market system requires people to look out for the needs of others. It is a merit based system - meaning, if you are good at what you do, then you succeed. Another aspect of success though, is that your success must be recognized by others as measured by their desire to buy whatever service or product that you offer in your business.

In a free market system we all sell something. I'm a pilot, I sell my skill as a pilot to the company that employs me. My wife is a receptionist, she sells her time and diligence to her employer. My product is my knowledge, experience, skill, character, attitude, and time. On each of these attributes my employer measures my worth and decides whether or not he is receiving value from my position within his company. If the value is below what he requires and he determines that a different employee with different skills, attitude, etc would provide a higher return, then he'll replace me with that person.

Free market systems are voluntary. Every exchange is based on choice. I choose from whom I will buy. And other's choose whether or not they will buy from me. As a result, my manners and approach to those I serve must meet with their approval. I must work hard for them, be kind to them, make it easy for them - or they will go somewhere else.

All of us are required to take care of others if we want to succeed. If I don't take care of my employer he lets me go, if a business doesn't take care of its customers they shop somewhere else. In the amazing free market system a person may only consume in direct proportion to what they produce. A productive person pleases many people, makes a lot of money, and may therefore buy more for himself from others. He has met the needs of many and may therefore purchase the time, talent, and property of others in greater proportion than a person who has not met the needs of many. It is an immensely fair and balanced system.

The socialistic system is not this way - in fact, it is exactly opposite.

A socialistic system requires "pull". To achieve success in a socialistic system you have to know people who can help you get what you want. Governmental systems by their very nature are coercive. That means, anything that a government decides to do it will accomplish by force - people do not have the freedom to go elsewhere for the services required from government. If you want a license plate, you go to the DMV, there is no other way. If you want to drive on a highway, you go the speed they tell you, break the speed limit and you'll face a fine or go to jail. Want to fly a plane somewhere, you'll be dealing with governmentally run Air Traffic Control - you don't have the choice to use another "service provider."

Since socialistic systems are not voluntary and people have no choice about dealing with them, merit is not the means of obtaining success.

Our governmental system has become socialistic. Rather than preserving liberty which is the moral and proper function of government, our government has gotten into the entitlement business. They give gifts - why? Because that is how you succeed in government. The politician achieves success by offering goods and services to his constituents. Unfortunately, the goods and services that he "gives" away are coercively taken away from others. I say coercively because if you refuse to pay taxes, you'll go to jail at the point of a gun - that's coercion.

Socialism takes from one person and gives to another. The person who succeeds in a socialistic system has learned how to take the most from some people and give the most to others. The person who receives from government has learned how to get his name on the Pay To line of a government check, and it most cases it wasn't by providing a better service to his fellow man.

The more socialism advances, the more manipulation and exploitation of people is required to hold the system together. To be the successful socialist requires great skill in the manipulation and exploitation of people.

Free enterprise and socialism are fundamentally different. The difference lies in the fact that free enterprise systems are voluntary and socialistic systems are coercive. The end result is that free enterprise systems turn the hearts of men outward, towards others in a search for needs that other's have that they can fill. Success in a free market system requires personal development in ways that meets the needs of others. In socialistic systems, the heart of man turns inward, to look for ways to deceive their fellow man and exploit him. The socialistic system depends on who you know rather than who you serve.

Achievement in one system makes us take care of our fellow man, achievement in the other causes us to exploit him.

So to answer the caller, that is one major things "wrong" with socialism.