Henry Lamb
Are "Black Hats" genetically defective?
By Henry Lamb
To listen, click here
Some people believe they have a right to take what another has earned. Another distinguishing characteristic of this group is their eagerness to dictate the behavior of others. These people are called progressives, socialists, communists, dictators, kings, and sometimes gangsters. We'll refer to these people as "black hats."
The rest of the world knows inherently that it is morally wrong to take anything from another without their permission. They also know that they have no right to direct the affairs of other people. Their unspoken motto is: "any right that I claim for myself, I will gladly grant to all others." We'll refer to these people as "white hats."
Washington is full of both, but since they rarely wear a hat, it is hard to identify them until they open their mouth, or vote.
Consider this scenario: a man is born into this world with nothing. He works hard and becomes a gazillionaire, paying a healthy tax on every penny he earns all his life. Then he dies. One group says his estate must pay 35-percent to the government; another group says, no, his estate must pay 55-percent. These are the "black hats," regardless of the political party they profess.
Another group says: his estate should pay nothing. There is no moral reason why the estate owes the government another dime. Taxes were paid at the time the person earned his fortune. Why do the "black hats" believe they have a right to take what another has earned?
"Black hats" also tend to believe that the more an individual earns, the higher the tax rate should be on that individual. Put aside all the economic arguments and look at the matter head on: if taxes are to be taken from the population at all, they should be taken only with the permission of the population, and they should be taken at an equal rate. "White hats" tend to believe that the cost of government should be distributed equally among the people who must pay the bill. No one should be penalized simply because he has earned more money than another. When the rate is the same for all earners, the more successful contribute more dollars to the pay government's bill than do the less successful. When this payment is increased by forcing tax payment at a higher rate than others pay, the excess is nothing less than legal theft.
"Black hats" seem to be eager to dictate the behavior of others. Consider this scenario: a man is born into this world with nothing. He works hard, saves his money, and finally is able to buy ten acres of land overlooking a beautiful valley. He goes to the county's building department for a permit to build his dream house. He learns that his request will have to be reviewed by the historic society, the local heritage committee, the planning commission, Greenpeace, and Mickey Mouse. "Come back in 60 days," he is told.
His request was denied because the historic society says no house should be built in the proposed location because Indians once lived in the area and construction could damage precious artifacts; the heritage society says a structure located on the proposed property would destroy the viewshed for people in the valley; the planning commission says that the comprehensive planning map shows the location to be in an area where the minimum lot size is 40 acres; Greenpeace says that a house in this location would endanger the whale, and Mickey Mouse says that it would accelerate global warming.
Where do "black hats" get the right to forbid another citizen to do what he wishes with his own property? Should the actions of this citizen damage the property of another, or infringe the rights of another, existing law provides for the damaged party to recover his damage — providing the alleged loss can be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.
"Black hats" have no moral right to do what they do. They seem unable to see possible alternatives from another's point of view. They seem not to care about another's point of view. They seem to care only about implementing their own point of view, regardless of what the "white hats" think or want.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the passage of Obamacare. For the first time "black hats" gladly forced all Americans to buy a product whether they wanted, or needed it. With this precedent established, a "black hat" government can just as easily force Americans to buy Chevrolets, rather than Fords, should the "black hats" so decide.
"Black hats" may not be bad people, they may just have a genetic defect that prevents them from understanding that they are no better than the "white hats." They may be incapable of understanding that their ideas could be wrong. They may not have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a proposal. They seem to possess only the desire to prevail, whatever the cost, regardless of how stupid the proposal may be.
The world has always had "black hats," and always will. The nation should, as a collective New Year's resolution, resolve to pity the "black hats," and by all means, to keep them out of government.
© Henry Lamb
December 19, 2010
To listen, click here
Some people believe they have a right to take what another has earned. Another distinguishing characteristic of this group is their eagerness to dictate the behavior of others. These people are called progressives, socialists, communists, dictators, kings, and sometimes gangsters. We'll refer to these people as "black hats."
The rest of the world knows inherently that it is morally wrong to take anything from another without their permission. They also know that they have no right to direct the affairs of other people. Their unspoken motto is: "any right that I claim for myself, I will gladly grant to all others." We'll refer to these people as "white hats."
Washington is full of both, but since they rarely wear a hat, it is hard to identify them until they open their mouth, or vote.
Consider this scenario: a man is born into this world with nothing. He works hard and becomes a gazillionaire, paying a healthy tax on every penny he earns all his life. Then he dies. One group says his estate must pay 35-percent to the government; another group says, no, his estate must pay 55-percent. These are the "black hats," regardless of the political party they profess.
Another group says: his estate should pay nothing. There is no moral reason why the estate owes the government another dime. Taxes were paid at the time the person earned his fortune. Why do the "black hats" believe they have a right to take what another has earned?
"Black hats" also tend to believe that the more an individual earns, the higher the tax rate should be on that individual. Put aside all the economic arguments and look at the matter head on: if taxes are to be taken from the population at all, they should be taken only with the permission of the population, and they should be taken at an equal rate. "White hats" tend to believe that the cost of government should be distributed equally among the people who must pay the bill. No one should be penalized simply because he has earned more money than another. When the rate is the same for all earners, the more successful contribute more dollars to the pay government's bill than do the less successful. When this payment is increased by forcing tax payment at a higher rate than others pay, the excess is nothing less than legal theft.
"Black hats" seem to be eager to dictate the behavior of others. Consider this scenario: a man is born into this world with nothing. He works hard, saves his money, and finally is able to buy ten acres of land overlooking a beautiful valley. He goes to the county's building department for a permit to build his dream house. He learns that his request will have to be reviewed by the historic society, the local heritage committee, the planning commission, Greenpeace, and Mickey Mouse. "Come back in 60 days," he is told.
His request was denied because the historic society says no house should be built in the proposed location because Indians once lived in the area and construction could damage precious artifacts; the heritage society says a structure located on the proposed property would destroy the viewshed for people in the valley; the planning commission says that the comprehensive planning map shows the location to be in an area where the minimum lot size is 40 acres; Greenpeace says that a house in this location would endanger the whale, and Mickey Mouse says that it would accelerate global warming.
Where do "black hats" get the right to forbid another citizen to do what he wishes with his own property? Should the actions of this citizen damage the property of another, or infringe the rights of another, existing law provides for the damaged party to recover his damage — providing the alleged loss can be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.
"Black hats" have no moral right to do what they do. They seem unable to see possible alternatives from another's point of view. They seem not to care about another's point of view. They seem to care only about implementing their own point of view, regardless of what the "white hats" think or want.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the passage of Obamacare. For the first time "black hats" gladly forced all Americans to buy a product whether they wanted, or needed it. With this precedent established, a "black hat" government can just as easily force Americans to buy Chevrolets, rather than Fords, should the "black hats" so decide.
"Black hats" may not be bad people, they may just have a genetic defect that prevents them from understanding that they are no better than the "white hats." They may be incapable of understanding that their ideas could be wrong. They may not have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a proposal. They seem to possess only the desire to prevail, whatever the cost, regardless of how stupid the proposal may be.
The world has always had "black hats," and always will. The nation should, as a collective New Year's resolution, resolve to pity the "black hats," and by all means, to keep them out of government.
© Henry Lamb
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
