Tyranny of the Majority

As liberals go, I actually had a touch of like for Joltin Joe Biden in his Senate days.  But since he got in bed with the Marxists in the Executive Branch, it’s become increasingly difficult to give him a pass.  Even so, I feel compelled to cut Joe some slack by blaming his maniacal remarks on mitigating circumstances — the fact that he’s a bona fide idiot.

Thus, when the Delaware Dimwit said that paying taxes is the most patriotic thing an already overtaxed American citizen can do, it wasn’t out of malice.  Truth be known, I don’t believe he has any idea why he says such things.  As near as I can tell, he simply appears to be on progressive autopilot.

Now Biden wants to increase the national debt even more by insisting that Congress pass the latest mini-stimulus, warning that if it doesn’t, there won’t be enough police to prevent rapes and robberies.  Hmm … how weird.  Offhand, I can’t recall a single instance where a law enforcement officer prevented a rape or robbery … but, hey, there’s always a first time.

In any event, whether nonsensical statements like this are the result of stupidity, lack of knowledge, or malevolence, be prepared for them to come at you in torrents over the next twelve months.  With Republican presidential candidates taking bites out of each others’ arms, imagine what it’s going to be like when the Democrats take aim at the Republicans’ soon-to-be-known compromise candidate, whomever that might be.

The question no Republican seems interested in asking is:  What gives any elected official the authority to increase taxes on American citizens whenever he has an urge to hand money to selected groups of his choosing?  The Constitution doesn’t say that it’s the duty of the American citizen to play the role of a docile cow waiting to be milked whenever politicians decide they need more money.

One of the Democrats’ favorite new talking points is that recent polls show that 80 percent of Americans favor a new tax on millionaires and billionaires.  Gosh, really?  I would never have thought the average person would favor taxing America’s wealthiest citizens.  Duh … of course most people would like to see a tax on someone other than themselves!  Why not, so long as the government doesn’t tax them.

But, guess what.  The Founding Fathers set up the rules of the game in such a way as to specifically prevent America from becoming a tyranny-of-the-majority nation.  Which is why polling questions about increasing taxes are irrelevant.  Every person on this earth has unlimited desires, but those desires don’t give him a claim on the assets of others.

Lest anyone forget, America is supposed to be a republic.  And in a true republic, the fact that 80 percent of the population favors committing aggression against a minority — including the minority of people who are the most financially successful — should carry no weight when it comes to legislation.

The fact is that majority rule violates the rights of others if it forces them to go along with actions with which they do not agree.  Progressives would like us to believe that majority rule is morally virtuous.  The reality, however, is that majority rule is moral cannibalism, because it makes it possible for one group of people, simply by being in the majority, to do whatever it wishes to those in the minority.  In fact, theoretically speaking, majority rule could validate literal cannibalism!

The basic premise of majority rule is that good is defined as “that which is best for the greatest number of people.”  Such a premise, however, is so vague as to be meaningless. Every individual has a unique set of circumstances, unique needs and desires, unique personality traits, unique fears, and unique ambitions.

And it is each person’s uniqueness that dictates which actions are best for him. That’s why progressive terms such as social justice and the common good are nothing more than red herrings.

The same moral logic holds true for corporations, since they are the property of individuals, often large numbers of individuals.  But some folks in Lynchburg, Tennessee don’t see it that way.  Charles Rogers, a 75-year-old retiree and self-described “concerned citizen” of Moore County, where distillery giant Jack Daniel’s is located, recently created a stir when he said, “We are entitled [my emphasis] to more money from the only industry in the county —  Jack Daniel’s distillery.”

To which Tommy Beam, general manager of Jack Daniel’s, responded, “That’s not free enterprise and that’s not what this country was built on.  I saw a quote the other day that said that a person used to look at a successful person and say, ‘Now, what do I have to do to become like that?’  Whereas now they might look at him and say, ‘What can I do to get what they’ve got?’”

Well said.  Nevertheless, the Moore County Council passed a measure asking the Tennessee Assembly for enabling legislation to put the question of a per-barrel tax on Jack Daniel’s whiskey on the ballot.  That’s right, the entitlement crowd in Moore County is coming after its number-one benefactor, Jack Daniel’s, the company that put Lynchburg on the map over the past century.

It’s a classic case of tyranny of the majority.  Forget the fact that Jack Daniel’s is by far the biggest employer in Moore County.  Forget the fact that it’s a magnet that draws 250,000 tourists (who spend money!) each year to Lynchburg.  Forget the fact that the company already pays 60 percent of the price of a bottle of whiskey in taxes.

Clearly, the class-warfare battle-cry in the hinterlands is pretty much the same as it is 900 miles to the more sophisticated northeast in the Occupy Wall Street protest:  “I want more, so you have to give it to me.”  Sounds rational to me.

Move over Greece, here we come.