President-elect Joe Biden has expressed support for increasing taxes and the level of involvement that the government has in the economic affairs of private citizens. If Joe Biden and the Democrats follow through on this proposal, they will have no justification for their arbitrary actions. The theory underlying the proposal displays an irrational adherence to subjective ethical assumptions and disregards the individual’s right to enjoy the products of his labor. The proposal uses the power of government to persecute people merely on the grounds that have become successful and prosperous. Advocates of the proposal are hopelessly lost in their own self-righteousness and have forgotten the most basic virtue of all: theft is wrong.
If one supports the proposal, they are subscribing to a theory plagued with insoluble contradictions. For example, Joe Biden claims to protect “people” the public needs to surrender their money and economic freedom that is necessary for their own well-being and survival. The stated purpose of the proposal is completely at odds with the consequences of the bill because it is not in the interest of the people to surrender their resources and limit their ability to participate in capital markets with excessive regulation. There is much talk about progress and a better future from the proposal’s supporters, yet they ignore the most basic rule about the relationship between man and progress: The only incentive to progress and innovate is the ability to reap the benefits. The proposal will hurt individuals with regulations and tax punishments and cause economic decline which completely contradicts the message of progress behind it.
A political system has no right to force people to transfer goods necessary for their own survival. The collectivist mindset that is the foundation for the economic proposal is contrary to the dictates of nature and should be rejected. There is no room for compromise on the proposal since doing so would grant legitimacy to the idea that the property of some may be stolen and redistributed to another merely on the grounds that the majority is somehow responsible for nurturing those who complain instead of work. If a compromise happens on economic regulation and taxes, ask “what property and freedom will they come after next?”
The collectivist mindset only serves to disconnect people from their natural state of selfishness and weaken those supporting the proposal by placing responsibility for their own survival onto other people. For example, advocates for the proposal will ask “what can others do for me?” instead of “what can I do for myself?” thereby relegating them to a state of perpetual helplessness, and nature is not kind to those who do not look after themselves.
While the proposal is beyond the capacity of government, the intimidation tactics used by its supporters is alone enough to question the proposal. People who support the proposal often denounce those who oppose it as morally corrupt as if they were the ones advocating to steal the benefits of another person’s work. Such tactics are used to compensate for a lack of rational thought for they are interested in obedience not debate.