|
I was listening to a local talk radio host here in Seattle who was interviewing someone about Bernie Madoff. It appears that Bernie has some cash stashed away and they were discussing how those funds should be distributed to the defrauded investors. The host was interested in “justice.”
The guest said that a percentage formula ought to be employed. So if 50 billion is the amount of the fraud and you contributed 10 billion of it you would get 20% of the cash that was left. The host had other ideas. In the name of “justice” he thought that those who were more damaged should get most of the money back. So a small investor who lost most of his money with Madoff would get most of it back, while large investors who still had net worth in other investments could lump it. What moral principal is our host using to make this call? If poor folk who invest and loose their money to fraud ought to be made whole again, why should that cost be born by others who also lost their money? Why not force all rich people to pay them back? Why not force liberal radio hosts to make good the investment? Why is my proposal any less “just” than the hosts? And what is the difference between stealing and what the host, or I proposed? Imagine a world where poor people could invest and never lose. Their investments would always be made good by rich investors. Under this scheme, if you were rich would you ever invest? What do you think would happen to our economy, our well being under such a scheme? What do you think would eventually happen to the poor guys when the rich guys stop investing? This hosts proposal sounded swell at the time. He dressed it all up with words like “justice” and “fairness.” I would imagine that most people when hearing the host’s proposal would agree with him. They could all imagine what it would be like to be wiped out by fraud, and the rich guy could certainly afford the loss better than they could. But step back and think about the morals of what he is proposing. He wants to take the money from one guy and hand it to another. Simple as that. Where’s the justice or fairness in that? I know of no moral construct that would back such an action. But that is the liberal view, and liberals dominate our culture. For decades liberals have been turning justice on its head, so that having two defrauded investors equally share the pain is wrong but having one of those investors made whole while the other bears all the pain is “justice.” The threat to our liberty doesn’t begin with any one election. It goes all the way back to our culture, and how we frame the discussion of the issues. We need to take the initiative wherever we can so that “justice” can really mean justice once again.
|
