Home

home
Stay Informed

stay informed
ideas

ideas
media library

media library


get involved




Login:
Password:
Register | Forgot login info


George Washington Quote

There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for war.

ideas > Protecting the rich from the poor

Protecting the rich from the poor
Does the government have a right to protect a minority group in America from the tyranny of the majority? I believe that most Americans would say so. The government has a role and an obligation to protect all individuals from being robbed of their natural rights such as life, liberty, property, and happiness. That is the role of the government. We have seen this during the Civil War when the North fought against the South and the slaves were freed. We saw this during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s when the Warren Court worked tirelessly to ensure that blacks were treated equally with other racial groups in the areas of education, voting, and other areas. We have seen recently through federal government preferences for women and racial minorities when doing business for the federal government. There are many laws now that seek to prevent the majority from taking advantage of the minority. Right or wrong, these laws exist. If it is the government's duty to do so, then why doesn't the government protect the rich from the poor? Aren't the rich a minority? What gives the poor the right or authority to take disproportionately from the rich and give it to themselves? Is it solely because the poor are the majority and the rich are the minority? Isn't this wrong? If we protect other minorities from the majority, how can we not protect the rich from the majority as well? Isn't this the only moral path that we as a nation can take? It is the only consistent path. We cannot cherry-pick which minority group we choose to protect.
Sadly though, it seems like we have forgotten our values of protecting the minority from the majority, ensuring that everyone's rights are protected, for the sake of political expediency. Now we have major political parties whose major platforms rest upon the forced confiscation of money from the rich and re-distribution to the poor. This is tragic, because it is both greedy and layered in all manner of jealousy and envy, which cannot be good for the unity of the nation. If you choose to protect other minorities from the majority, then you cannot fail to protect the rich from the poor just because you want their money. There is no coherence in that policy. It is solely done to gain elected office and power. What a shame that America has accepted the belief that is ok to rob from the rich and give to the poor even though most people that are rich are people that used to be poor. They worked hard to provide a product or service that many people wanted. Look at Bill Gates. He certainly wasn't rich. He was a poor college student who had some talent and a business idea. In his lifetime, he went from a regular Joe to the richest man in the world because he revolutionized the PC business. What value allows the federal government and the people to take more of his money that he earned fair and square from him and redistribute it to the poor? It is nothing other than pure greed, envy, and jealousy, the same emotions behind the governmental system called socialism, the same gospel that most politicians peddle to the masses and the masses gladly lap up. It certainly is a sad day when most Americans (check the Gallup poll) believe that it is ok to rob from the rich and give to the poor. What does this say about America? Not much, I am afraid.
Contact us