George Orwell was correct to state that “[a]ll animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others,” actually referring to human beings whom social scientists oft refer to as animals. Throughout the history of humanity, people have generally known that they were created equal. And yet, there have been separations, discriminations, dissimilarities, and inequalities, for the reason that God, Nature or Evolution – depending on what we choose to believe in – did not grant equal abilities, talents, and gifts to all human beings.
Some men are richer and more intelligent than the others. Some are born deaf, dumb, and blind. And, some must rely on income support because they just cannot beat poverty on their own. Then there are the leaders of mankind who cannot think like the rest seeing as they are set apart from the others in the position of leadership. If leaders were to act as though they were the equals of their followers, the position of leadership would have to be abolished.
Hence, those that have special gifts or utilize their abilities in special ways would never be truly equal to the rest, despite the fact that they were essentially created the same way. Still, as Locke would say, if these special, superior people just cannot manage to fulfill their responsibilities over the rest, the latter would have the right to kill their incompetent leaders (“Locke versus Hobbes”). According to the conservative view, poverty is mostly unintentional; that is, poor people are working hard enough to be able to support themselves but they remain poor nevertheless.
The liberal view is that poverty is caused by discrimination; that is, those that are considered disadvantaged, e. g. the single mothers and African Americans are believed to be at a loss because society would not grant them enough opportunities to raise their standards of living, which happens to be the reason for the affirmative action policy. The radical view, on the other hand, exclaims that it is the culture of corporatism that has failed to raise the standard of living of the entire population.
This is the reason why the rich keep getting richer, while the poor keep becoming poorer, as proved by the statistics. Moreover, this happens despite the fact that the government forces taxation on those that work to support those that do not work or work for low wages. The poor remain poor despite income support and threaten the rich taxpayers. In fact, the conflict theory is based on the idea that the main causes of crime and deviance are the economic and social differences among people, prompting the have-nots to act out, if not rob the haves.
According to this theory, criminal law and the entire criminal justice system tend to be favorable toward the wealthy and the powerful elites, while governmental policies are aimed at controlling only the needy and poor people (“Conflict Theory,” 2005). Perhaps, therefore, the poor believe that the rich side with the government anyway, and must be killed just as incompetent leaders must be eradicated.
Regardless of our beliefs about the reasons for poverty, the government has shouldered the responsibility to care for the poor by spending almost half of its spending budget on income support programs such as social insurance, public assistance, and work/employment programs. In order to raise the standard of living of the poor, the government also considers education as an essential social welfare program. After all, if the government were to stop supporting the poor by whatever means it can, our country would be pretty much like a third world nation where the majority is poor and sleeping on the streets.
Yet, a number of literate people among our population – most definitely those who are not poor enough to be on income support – argue that the government may be wasting its money on the poor and lazy folks. Such people further argue that the poor and hungry people will become dependent and virtually useless if the government were to go on supporting them. But, how would such people consider answering the question of poverty that is facing the third world at present?
Regardless of their answer, however, the fact remains that although the government of the United States has endeavored to do much more for the poor than developing countries – poverty and crime are realities in the rich world to boot. There are professional beggars in both Europe and India. Undoubtedly, European governments demand higher taxes than governments in the developing world. The fact that poverty and crime refuse to leave the rich world despite financial support from those that work has Mark Skousen, an author and economist, comment: “Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society…” (Casey, 2002).
After all, the question remains: Why is the government incapable of supporting the poor and ending crime when, in fact, those that fuel the economy are supporting the government in making things right for everybody? If taxes were actually being used to make things right for everybody – everything should have been settled by now seeing that the government has already taken enough from the haves. Is it corruption that stops the government from making everything right for everybody?
If the answer is Yes, the haves would also like to kill their incompetent leaders with the have-nots’ support. Doug Casey, author of Crisis Investing, refers to taxation as “criminal aggression” on the part of the government. If the government had done everything right with people’s incomes it takes in taxes, however, Casey would not have used such harsh words. The poor people in the least developed nations are certainly not dependent on their governments for income support. Their governments cannot afford to support the poor and needy people in any case.
But, the governments of the rich world have no excuse to behave like poverty inflicted folks regardless of whether we believe in the conservative, liberal or radical views on causes of poverty. Why does the government of the United States, for example, fail to ensure that healthcare is accessible to everybody and all Americans go to college at least? People without sufficient education are naturally at risk of poverty, and those who been to college are generally capable of gathering ideas to make a living instead of begging in the downtowns of all major cities.
For the reason that the government has failed to fulfill its responsibilities but nonetheless insists on getting people’s attention through the media at all times, educated haves get irritated about governmental policies with the awareness that the government is not always right even if it intends to play god for the country as a whole. Thus, the haves use their words as swords to put down governmental policies, as the following passage authored by Yates & Bornert II (2000) illustrates: The 13th Amendment makes it very clear that we cannot legally or Constitutionally be forced into involuntary servitude.
As such, we maintain that a human being has an inalienable right to own 100% of Person and 100% of Labor, including control over how the fruits of his actions are dispensed. A human being has an inalienable right to control the compensation for his labor while in the act of any service in the marketplace – e. g. , digging ditches, flipping burgers, word-processing documents for a company, programming computers, preparing court cases, performing surgery, preaching sermons, or writing novels. A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated
in the 13th Amendment. If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25% of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude – slavery – for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30. If we could freely choose to work just the 30 hours and decline to work the 10 hours, then our wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored. However, Congress, the IRS and their Internal Revenue Code (IRC) lay direct claim to those ten hours (or some stated percentage) without our consent.
In other words, in a free and just society, a society in which there is no slavery of any form: Human beings are not forced to work for free, in whole or in part. Human beings are not slaves to anything or anyone. Anyone who attempts to force us to work for free, without compensation, has violated our rights under the 13th Amendment. (Yates & Bornert II). Poor government. It is neither with the haves nor with the have-nots. At the same time, it cannot be isolated from the haves and the have-nots. It is common knowledge that corrupt politicians support unethical business practices which in turn support smaller criminals.
If we are to assume that the government of the United States has been performing flawlessly for many decades now, let us return to the twentieth century during the Prohibition era. Many refer to the Prohibition as the beginning of organized crime in America. Criminal organizations were both wealthy and powerful at the time, which is why politicians representing the government of the United States and the police are known to have taken bribes from criminal groups in exchange for legal protection of criminal gang members.
In fact, major politicians made massive amounts of money by supporting organized crime during the Prohibition. It was public knowledge that government officials were involved with criminal organizations (Thornton, 1991). But, that is clearly not the reason why both the haves and the have-nots complain about government policies in the twenty first century. Michael Moore, in his documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 described George W. Bush as a president who was secretly involved with foreign organizations supporting state terror because the president wanted to make money on oil.
George W. Bush left the White House when the Great Recession had ensued. Both the haves and the have-nots have been affected by it, although the have-nots are disproportionately affected. Thus, the example of the Prohibition only goes out to show that the government of the United States has never been truly innocent as it has posed to be. Where does this leave the common man? Is he at the mercy of ruthless dictators posing as lovers of democracy? Are the haves and the have-nots going to kill their leaders – all of them?
How are things going to become ok for everybody, after all? All of these questions have a single answer: Those that pose as good for nothing today are the only ones responsible for themselves; if they choose to depose others that are good for nothing even though they are leaders – so be it. Let the status quo roll itself. References Casey, D. (2002, Sep 26). Slightly Up from Slavery. World Net Daily. Retrieved Mar 15, 2009, from http://www. worldnetdaily. com/index. php? pageId=15336. Conflict Theory. (2005, Nov 22).
Florida State University. Retrieved Mar 15, 2009, from http://www. criminology. fsu. edu/crimtheory/conflict. htm. Locke versus Hobbes. Retrieved Mar 15, 2009, from http://jim. com/hobbes. htm. Thornton, M. (1991, Jul 17). Alcohol Prohibition was a Failure. CATO Institute. Retrieved Mar 15, 2009, from http://www. cato. org/pub_display. php? pub_id=1017&full=1. Yates, S. , & Bornert II, R. E. (2007, Oct 7). Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery? Lew Rockwell. Retrieved Mar 15, 2009, from http://www. lewrockwell. com/yates/yates17. html.