Among the surplus of annoying, demagogic talking points put out by the class-warfare crowd, one in particular consistently stands out, in my mind, as a thorn in the side of reason, and which seems to be perpetually accepted by a great number of the followership in our culture. That statement is, 'The rich are always getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is shrinking.'

There is not a shred of honesty to the statement and a moment's consideration could expose it as an outright lie, if only such consideration were given a chance.  After all, that is half the reason for having a 'talking point', that declared notions are accepted readily and without question.

So, why does this statement grate me so much? I suspect some of my frustration stems from overexposure to this nonsensical, bilge but I will set that aside for now and focus on the meaningful reasons.

The rich are always get richer... This statement cuts right to the core of the need for law. It is stated that 'The rich always get richer,' as though this is a problem, as though people putting forth effort to improve themselves is somehow bad. In a free market economy, in order for a person to acquire wealth, he must please someone! Many people, noting objectivist libertarians, hold that the greatest charitable act anyone can undertake is to provide for oneself and thus avoid ones own 'burden to society'.

And the rich, generally speaking, do, indeed always grow their wealth. But how do they go about it? Do they break down doors and steal from bank accounts? No, they engage in market commerce, most often investment in businesses, which employ people to create products and services that other people want and want enough to trade the performance certificate of their effort (money) in exchange for those goods.

Notably, in a free market economy, everyone gets richer. A rising tide lifts all boats. You don't see America's poor still traveling the nation by equestrian means. Cars were once a luxury. Now, almost anyone can get a car and through many different means. Pick any area of American life and you'll see how free market economics has improved the quality of life for everyone. This is an example of wealth.

So, perhaps the statists do not speak merely of the rich getting richer so much as they mean to refer to the rate. It is true, the wealthy in America grow their fortunes at a faster rate than most other people, but there are reasons for that as well. Principally, it becomes much easier to invest in one's own businesses and in other businesses, as a greater amount of generated wealth becomes available. You can hire experts to analyze the markets for you, hire business consultants to streamline your businesses, etc.

But once again, that's not a problem in any way, shape, or form. Businesses almost always employ people and ALWAYS provide a mutual benefit to anyone with whom they engage in transaction. The simple fact remains indisputable that no transaction would take place otherwise. Any transaction which takes place without the impetus of a perceived mutual benefit has taken place against the will of one party, is therefore force, a violation of law, and to be redressed in the courts.

As citizens of moderate means, or even poor means, slowly work to improve their circumstance, it is most common that their effort will pay off in greater amounts over time. The more money they set aside to invest, the more likely they are to reap greater amounts of interest from those investments. Of course, this is risk taking, but on the whole, the average is a benefit when the market is left to the decisions of individuals rather than bureaucrats and commissars.

The poor always get poorer... Many reports have indicated that poverty in America is not poverty as would have been accepted in the eyes of citizens even 50 years ago, much less 150. The poor do not get poorer. They benefit from the rising tide. Products which were once luxuries in the extreme, to be experienced only by the super-wealthy elite, are now available to the lowest earning members of our population. Computers, cars, prescription drugs, air conditioning.... Look around your residence and pick any item you see. Study the history of that item, it's availability in the past, it's function. You will find a quality of life increase in every case. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Now, many poverty stricken people in America never rise from their location in America's supposed 'classes', but the reasons for that point very blatantly to government redistribution. A person whose life is provided for, at the basic level, and as we're doing at the entertainment level, will never see the need to rise out of it, to put forth effort. Welfare programs and redistributionist programs were declared necessary in order to get people out of their dire circumstance. Yet, every year these programs expand their dependents and their budgets.

As far as the "shrinking middle class" goes, I reject the notion entirely that the middle 80% is somehow no longer 80%. But seriously, this comes down to the mutation of analysis. Instead of associating people's quality of life with their circumstance, demagogues have sought to stack the 'rich' against the rest.

Here's what happens; the wealthy invest and as their holdings increase, the growth curves more steeply upward. In America, that upward curve happens very quickly because of the enormous opportunities afforded by a largely free market (which is quickly seeing chains form, unfortunately). As the top 5% begin to reap rewards which are at new levels, the entire graph must suddenly accommodate greater heights of value. So, the 'middle class' is pushed lower on the page, despite being higher in quality of life, opportunity, and even personal wealth. It is noteworthy that people in America have electric power in their homes. This is an example of the bottom of the graph falling off, though the falloff happens at a slower rate than the gain at the top, thus the perceived dominance by the uber-wealthy. Remember that the accelerating growth of wealth is multiplied as available value increases, not only when referring to different people but within a person's own achievement.

This sort of 'stacking' is an emotional argument. It tries to pit one earner against another, as though the two have to assault each other to achieve greater production. Leftists try to show how much more wealth one person has than another while ignoring several key issues, such as, choices made, opportunity available, and quality of life within it all. In those respects, every American is richer, across the board, and specifically because of the right of individuals to keep whatever they produce, in Bradfordian simplicity. Once again that proper, and natural arrangement is being attacked by the demagogues.

Statements referring to people in 'classes' are useless as well. Such an analysis of population is unAmerican. It disregards the notion that people can travel between levels of prosperity based upon the choices they decide to make. Well, does anyone really think that the wealthy simply always were wealthy? Is that even historically possible? The left uses a term quite often, 'robber-baron', to describe the top 5% of wealth holders in America, as though the mere fact that they have more than others can only mean they assaulted those others to have it. But the wealthy do not steal from anyone, by and large. They create that wealth by engaging in productive commerce which would not have been produced otherwise.

Next time you hear the statement that the "rich are getting richer", ask the demagog/sheep why that is. Invariably, he will state that it's 'obvious' because the wealthy 'have so much more than everyone else'. Then point out to him, that is a result, not a reason. When it comes to war, no statist makes the case that the ends justify the means, and yet, in economics, they try to state that unequal ends make injustice of the means.

I submit this; in economics, the means always justify the ends. ALWAYS. When people engage in free commerce, the results are theirs to decide. They have only to set a goal and find a way to achieve it by mutually agreed upon transactions. Or even no transactions at all. Suppose I wanted corn. I don't necessarily need to buy it from anyone. I can buy some land and grow my own (barring the court's decisions, anyway).

Jason Lewis once pointed this out, and it really stuck with me. There are two types of equality which cannot be combined. There is equality under the law and equality of results.

Equality under the law is civil protection from force and fraud and national preservation from both. Equality of results is a perfectly equal divvying up of all valuable items amongst a given population, and is absolutely mythical at best (See Getting Specific on Material Equality). Thus, equality of results demands an inequality under the law, because the certainty of property rights has to be tightened for some to provide for those who have less and loosened on others to extract from those who have more.

I am not a wealthy man, far from it, in fact. I have a great deal to gain by stealing from those who have more than I do. But then again, those who have less than I, namely most of the world, would have a great deal to gain by stealing from me, following my own example. Sound familiar? I hope it does. Take a look at this quote. "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another but let him work diligently and build one for himself thus, by example, ensuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." Words of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln.

Violence is done to those who are savaged in Marxist fashion, by demagogues and politicians. It is very concerning that we have covered chains in velvet 'benevolence' to soften the bite of slavery; forcing one man to work for another. I do not stand for such tyranny and insist that every citizen of this nation awake from the slumber of ignorance and roll back the truly despicable systems which are set up to subject some men to the whims of others.

Behavior is regulated by results. Do not stand in the way of those who wish to increase their lot in life from reaping the rewards they've sown, else they will not effort to sew any seeds of prosperity or at best they will sew foolishly. Productivity exists for the sole purpose of prosperity and is best encouraged on an individual level.

No man takes initiative under central planning. If true equality is such that no person's property is greater or lesser in value than that of anyone else, then some serious questions arise which I believe have not been answered.

First off; what are the methods used? Are people given a certain amount of goods and value each week? Year? Decade?

If one man squanders his apportionment he suddenly becomes poor relative to those people who savor their allowance. Is this careless man entitled to another apportionment for parity's sake? How is that equality if he ultimately receives more than everyone else?

And who decides what is worth what to whom? Isn't that relative to each person's own viewpoint and goals?

And if each person is equal, shouldn't each have an equal vote on what is worth what and who should get what (since some items may be more precious to some people than others). How can such votes be tallied without the bias of those counting and measuring the results to be enacted?

Shouldn't each person also work and produce on an identical level to be fair in tasking as well as in reward? Should the man who squandered his allowance be forced to work extra to match the per-item labor costs of his consumption? How could the system be declared fair if he has less than others, but also how could the system be called fair if he has the a second share without effort in conjunction with his receipt of property?

Logistically, there is no way on this Earth to ask each person what they think is fair. Human nature will pollute the results even if it could be technically feasible.

Every person will try to get all they can for themselves and their friends while attempting to reduce their input (production, labor) as much as possible. Each will make the case that they should not be required to input into the system at all.

So, since fairness cannot be achieved through absolutely equal democracy, how can we fairly decide on a council which will always deal perfect equality or even near perfect equality? Is a council not also subject to those human traits of greed which lead to nepotism? And won't every individual who is not on the council claim themselves still dealt the shallowest hand?

History shows us a psychological axiom; the grass is always greener on the other side and no one will be satisfied with what they are given, apportioned by an elite ultra-smart few.

The truth is there is the only way to be really fair and equitable to everyone is to affirm their own right and responsibility for their own goals, actions, and accomplishments. Of course, we humans are fallible, which is why we have government in the first place; to protect us from outside coercion and force and to redress violations of our legal equality between each other. Our Constitutional republican government was designed for these purposes only; to protect against force and provide legal recourse against fraud.

In a society of self-actualized individuals, there is no one to blame for failure but oneself.  There is also no one to reap success but oneself and it is far more likely that one (and most) can be successful, when individually unharnessed, because the failure of an individual is limited in its scope and fluid in recovery.

This failure may seem difficult to overcome, faced on an individual level, but when compared to the failure of a central planning bureaucracy which is not subject to replacement, individual failure is far more palatable. This becomes especially more true granting that individuals who have not failed are always there to help those who have. Who helps the government when it thoroughly drops the ball? No entity is capable by power or by funding.

Government has a voracious appetite for power, even in representative government. That is the purpose of representation, to hold power. Those reigns, however, must be steering the government away from that natural desire and it is we, the people, who have held them for all this time. It is not long before the horses will wrest control of those delicate leather straps away from us and run this nation roughshod over a cliff.