Good afternoon on this fine Christmas Eve, comrades.

Here’s a thought that seems to be appropriate to share on Christmas Eve.

Why do people bother going through the painstaking process of choosing and buying presents for people, with a roughly 90% chance that he/she won’t like it?

Why can’t people just give some money as a present, and the recipient can go and choose and buy something he’ll actually like?

I find it idiotic that, for the sake of “tradition”, people are willing to fight through swarms of fellow shoppers and significant amounts of time hunting for Christmas “bargains”, only to have whatever shitty present they buy promptly forgotten forever by the recipient. Is it not blatantly obvious that the most logical way to do Christmas giving is by handing over a few notes so he/she can buy something they’ll definitely like? Stop wasting effort in vainly hunting for “perfect” presents, in the process funding big corporations and companies and giving those filthy rich Capitalists a much unneeded boost. Go spend your time on something more productive and of more value to this world.

“But wait, you dirty communist!” you might say. “What about the excitement of opening up an unknown present! Stop trying to take away an important Christmas tradition!”

Well, quite frankly, no matter the excitement and suspense associated with presents, a gift from someone else will never suit your wants and needs as much as if you go out and buy it yourself. And I couldn’t care less about “tradition”, in this day and age what we need is practicality and logical thinking to solve problems that plague society. So what if giving money doesn’t look as good as giving a box wrapped up in colourful paper. It’s the practical solution. Getting rid of the silly, imagined importance of wrapped up presents will help solve the stress and often chaos associated with Christmas shopping. I mean, people have been killed in Christmas shopping-related stampedes. It is really worth it for 40% off some overpriced product (despite the fact that, even with the 40% discount, it’s still overpriced)?

Then you might argue that, with everyone giving each other money, it would be even more silly, with people being able to see clearly exactly how much they’ve profited or lost. Well I personally wouldn’t mind seeing an annual period of spreading the wealth, but I admit that this idea is somewhat unfeasible.

So you know what? Let’s just cut out this costly ritual of spending large amounts of money on each other’s wants (not needs), and actually give to people who need it! Let’s make Christmas a giant charity-fest, an annual event where, along with traditional Christmas celebrations, people bond together and donate large amounts of funds to charities, giving to the less fortunate poverty-stricken people both at home and abroad in poor areas, and helping supply for their basic needs to survive, instead of running around wondering what new flashy gadget we can add to our collection. For the religious ones out there, I’m sure your Jesus would be pleased with such a combined action to help the needy every year, much more so than making the rich even richer. For the non-religious, well, such a charity-fest would simply be a highly productive, conscience-nurturing and fulfilling thing to take part in – much better than spending hours hunting for meaningless products, only to never see them in use again after giving them away.

Modern Christmas is a Capitalist lie. How did we turn a time for reflecting on the goodness of humanity into a money-grubbing Capitalist’s wet dream? Maybe it’s time we saw through the hugely unnecessary amounts of the trivial, commercial aspects of today’s Christmas and get back to the positive and spiritual meaning behind it. We should take a look at the bigger picture and make use of Christmas, a time when good nature and generosity are at a high, to get something useful and necessary done in this problematic world.

– Ruob.

“‘But I’ve chosen a special mission of my own. I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.’
‘What man?’
‘Robin Hood.'”
Ragnar Danneskjöld and Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

The new budget robs those who produce and rewards those who do not, all in the name of claiming votes.  Certainly, Kevin Rudd’s perverse moral code of altruism has something to do with it, but in reality, it’s all about votes.  Rudd thinks he is getting a decent return on investment, reappropriating the assets of one wealthy man or woman to buy the votes of several working class families.  The chief economist of the ANZ says that “as expected, [the budget] does little for single parents…There are more votes in whole families.”

Kevin Rudd is teaching our citizens that in order to make money, they no longer must produce, work, invest or otherwise contribute to society, but merely complain.  If they’re loud enough, the government will simply confiscate the proceeds of those who have achieved a profit, in order to appease them.  This is the problem with democracy, something to be discussed in further detail in a future article.

Rudd, who had previously described himself as a fiscal conservative, has proven that he is nothing of the sort.  He has fallen into the dark pit of altruism, an evil from which scare few return.  But once again, that issue deserves far greater inquiry that I can give here, so expect another article.

I won’t drag this on for much longer, seeing as how I wrote an article on this topic only a few days ago.  I’ll leave you with a question and a particularly excellent quote.

What happens when the victims, the rich, refuse to play the part of the sacrificial lamb?

“‘[Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea.’ ‘. . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.’
– Ragnar Danneskjöld, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?”
– Francisco d’Anconia, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
We constantly hear that income inequality is evil.  We hear it in the media, we hear it from the politicians, hell, I’ve been told by geography teachers that high income inequality is one of the simplest ways to identify a nation as evil.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  Of course, it’s easy to see why so many people believe this.  They accept that wealth is not created, but simply transferred, that one man can only succeed at the expense of another.  Once you accept this fallacy as truth, the rest comes logically.
“If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”
– Milton Friedman

This misconception originates from the rejection of the subjective theory of value.  That is, everything is worth something different to different people.  To you, a dollar coin is probably worth a dollar.  To a collector, it could be worth hundreds.  This means that no trade is conducted so that one party gains and one party loses.  When their subjective gains are considered, both parties have gained.  This holds true in all trade engaged in by two consenting parties, the basis of capitalism.  Only when force, more often than not from the government is brought into the equation, can one be disadvantaged by free trade.Instead of the subjective theory of value, the left-wing adheres instead to the masochistic labour theory of value, that everything is worth the amount of pain and suffering caused to the labourers who made it.  By this standard, human blood would be the most valuable commodity on the planet, simply because it is painful to obtain.  It would be worthless to the purchaser, but they are forced to pay an exorbitant price, simply because it was painful to produce.

Once you accept the logical subjective theory of value, it is clear that one man’s success is not another man’s failure.  In fact, to the contrary, it is his success as well.  The opponents of income inequality are not judging from the viewpoint of those involved in the transaction, but those who watch and do not profit.  These are people who measure their riches not in terms what they have, but in what their neighbours have.  The man who measures value by such a standard soon realises that rather than making a profit of his own and rising to the level of others, it is far easier to simply confiscate the profits of those who earn more than he.  In short, equality.  Communism.

What these people do not realise is that he they are indeed profiting from the work of the rich.  People below the poverty line in free nations live in conditions far superior to the men living in the “People’s States” of the world.  Why else was East Germany forced to build a wall to prevent it’s own citizens from fleeing their equal utopia to the decadent land of the west, where income inequality abounds?

Income inequality is not evil.  Far from it.  Income inequality is the recognition that a man earns what he produces, no more no less.  To demand that the industrialists who created this world be held as equals to the dole bludgers who leech off the rest of society, living on only what the government steals for them, is an evil far greater.

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”
– Aristotle