DOES BIGGER GOVERNMENT LEAD TO TOTALITARIANISM?
by OPOVV, ©2013
(Dec. 21, 2013) — Just for kicks, let’s say you grew up with a Slinky. You saw the TV commercials and actually saw your Science teacher give a demonstration of the conservation of energy using a Slinky for a prop. Recently you were at a toy store looking for presents and were delighted to see a box that said “Slinky Inside.” Wow, that make a neat gift. You buy it and, while at home about to wrap it up, you look inside the box and discover a rubber lizard.
Same name: different animal altogether. Then you read the fine print on your receipt: “This box of 1 (ONE) ‘Slinky Inside’ may not be returned for any reason whatsoever. We are sorry if you were misled, but it’s not our fault. If you had done your homework, you would have discovered that the company of rubber lizards is a company that practices sleazy and underhanded marketing practices. Have a nice day.”
The Democratic Political Party has always been in favor of Big Banks, Whoops! Sorry! I mean they’ve always been in favor of Big Government, as if any government anywhere at anytime has solved any problem anywhere at anytime.
Government need not be completely inept, but it is. Government need not always hire and promote the unqualified, but it does. Great minds and scholars have asked the same question for thousands of years: why are governments inherently inefficient?
Once upon a time there were a bunch of people who lived on an island. One day they decided to have a dog catcher, so they hired Joe. Joe spent all day surfing and napping. One day the Elders went to Joe and asked him why he wasn’t at work. Joe was indignant. He asked them if they had a dog problem. No, they did not. As a matter of fact, one said, they never had a dog problem because the island never had a dog. That’s right, exclaimed Joe, so you can see how well I’m doing my job! Satisfied now, the Elders left.
A neighboring island had a meeting of its Elders. Someone said that the island next door has a dog catcher. Then someone else said, “Good for them.” Another said, “We don’t have any dogs so we don’t need a dog catcher.” Meeting adjourned. Nap time.
A city had a government that provided services to the community. They had guards at the gate and refuse pickup. Since the beginning of time that city’s gates were locked at sunset and opened at sunrise, just like all the other places everywhere. One day someone said, “Let’s hire a guard at night,” and they thought that was a very good idea. So they hired a whole slew of guards and raised the taxes to pay for them all.
A neighboring town heard about all these new guards and called a meeting. “What did they get these new guards for, anyway? The gates stay closed at night.” “But they’re collecting more taxes to pay for worthless guards, something we don’t need, that’s for sure.” The motion that was called to hire new guards for gates that were closed and locked anyway never got off the ground because no one seconded the motion.
In a Midwest city in a place called the USA there was an election. One candidate told the people, “I’ll teach you how to fish so you won’t ever have to rely on anybody, including the government, for the rest of your lives.” The other candidate (the one who won) said, “The heck with fishing. You elect me, I’ll give you all the fish you want for the rest of your lives.”
Whenever a trade is made, wealth is created. The trade may or may not be fair or equitable, so the amount and direction of the transfer of wealth is problematic. However, if the parties involved are pleased with the transaction, then all is well. People who assist in the transfer (trade) siphon off a portion as payment, either in whatever was traded or in money. Governments levy a tax on the trade to pay for customs agents and other employees who oversee such transactions. The brokers and lawyers who read the contracts to see that the trade and transfer is kept safe for all parties are all parasites of the wealth that was created by the trade in the first place.
That’s right: all who are not directly connected with the product or services “traded” are nothing but leeches sucking the wealth out of the transaction. The fewer people with their hands out, the more profitable the trade, hence the more wealth created. Government employees do not contribute to the wealth of a nation: the workers do or, in our case, the taxpayers are the ones who create wealth.
Fewer jobs equal less in taxes. Increased tax rates for businesses mean less wealth because the money that would be put back in the system of trade is taken out to pay government employees who have contributed nothing to the transaction that creates wealth in the first place. Or, to say the same thing in another way, by definition, a Socialist/Communist country inherently has a disproportionate taxpayer/parasite (government employee) combination. For some reason the taxpayers are take in to the scam only to discover that they’ve been had.
The countries that are Socialist/Communist(including the horrible regimes of Hitler and Pol Pot) always have a demarcation between those who rule and those who are ruled. Better housing, food, and other benefits which include healthcare and travel are the traits of the privileged class compared to all the others, including low echelon government employees. Even in die-hard Communist countries (North Korea) the Generals have a more privileged existence than a Private, for example.
Socialism is, therefore, an illusion that is spread by the ruling class to the ignorant that proclaims equality when it’s anything but. Welcome to America 2013 where the Democratic Party should be called THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA.
OPOVV
BOTH parties – Republican and Democrat – should be called the Nationalist Socialist Party … they are the same apple by another name, not that I have anything against apples, but they ALL are what they are regardless of the label.