—it's in the probabilities ...
Economic free-for-alls always result in an unequal distribution of wealth. Simple probability predicts it.
If we were to take a handful of dice and throw them on a table, it would be improbable in the extreme to get the result of every die falling on the same number. It is entirely possible for every die to land on the same number, but highly unlikely (improbable).
It is precisely the same in the game of wealth distribution as it is practiced in the context of a free market. Instead of throwing dice, however, we throw resources at the players, and in effect tell them to simply feel free to do pretty much whatever they wish with those resources (so long of course as they do not inflict any deliberate harm on anyone in the process).
It seems very strange that the current mindset is so complacently predisposed to prefer such a haphazard system for passing around the goodies.
It just so happens that there is a pesky little problem lying at the very heart of this highly popular method of managing wealth.
If wealth remains unevenly distributed for long enough, it leads inevitably to class distinctions, which invariably clash with one another. This of course results in a set of circumstances that is subversive to the higher social order.
There is a way, in other words, in which economic disparity (the unequal distribution of wealth) can actually be viewed as a threat to national security. If it can indeed be established that such a condition is undesirable (and the very existence of the NSA would certainly suggest that it is), then we should view the economic policies that cause this set of circumstances in the same way, i.e., as undesirable.
Freedom is the sworn enemy of equality.
Perhaps we should reevaluate our position on the word socialism. Maybe it's not such a bad word after all.
March 11, 2010