Sunday, August 5, 2012

Puck on... Politics pt. 10

But don’t breathe that sigh of relief just yet, my boy, as I don’t think we fully put this matter to bed.

Will we ever?

Good point. But don’t worry, we will move on to more fruitful matters when the time comes. For now, I think there is an aspect of your political motivations that requires more discussion.

Let us posit a situation, shall we? Supposing a “candidate” was so bold as to offer you a sum of money, say a million, that if they were elected, you would receive it. Would you take it?


Of course not! You are a man of honor after all. And who would? Why the indignity of it.

Now supposing another candidate promised that if elected they would work to put through tax cuts and eliminate government spending, so people like you could take home more of your hard-earned money. Would you support them then?

You know what? You don’t have to answer that. Here’s my question: what’s the difference between the two? Hmmm?

Let’s leave you out of it, to save that precious pride; do you think others would take the second offer?


In fact, you can see that many already have.


So, what’s the difference? Why is the first proposal considered so indecent and the second lauded, praised? What reason do you suppose one of those supporters would give for backing the second’s plan?

I suppose, they might say that they had earned their pay, that it wasn’t wrong because it was already their paycheck.

Oh, but they shouldn’t count themselves so short. After all, if he wants to be so generous, who are they say to no? They will certainly have earned the first’s money. That was the promise. They will do their part and he will do his. Why should we look down on this exchange?

Because it’s a bribe.

And what is the other candidate’s plan? Is he not plucking at the same string as the first, appealing to the same part of the citizen? What is so different? Is not the reasoning the same? Why should gains be so ill gotten when someone wants to simply give them to you as opposed to promising to take less? Isn’t the same thing being bought?

And here we have the second part. Before the ends justified the means, but here, the means are meant to justify the ends. And this is not so uncommon a practice. A thief is tried and punished, but a businessman is a success, however he chooses to make his wealth.

They are not always praised.

No, but so few find their way into courtrooms. Of course, we perhaps are skirting the central point. We are talking about taxes, aren’t we? The rules are different, always different with taxes. You said yourself, that is your money, and we both know, that any amount that you have to give- Give? No, they demand it from you, steal it! Any amount you must render unto Caesar is nothing more than an absolute encumbrance, a punishment. Why, it’s unconstitutional! (Oh, the speech I could give you about that word.) And any man that promises to lighten that load must be a saint, deserving of your absolute devotion.

Never mind the fact that money indeed makes the world go round. For governments no less that businesses. If they cannot get it from you, where do you expect them to get it? Is it any wonder manifest destiny was once a popular idea? Let the foreigner foot the bill. That surely can’t come back to bite you.

Ah, greed. You are such a crafty sin.

No comments:

Post a Comment