"Equity" Shows Its Face--Steps Out Of The Shadows

On the face of it the whole notion of "equity" has been introduced to America under the guise of "fairness," "goodness, "decency" and any other virtues that seemed helpful to the equity advocates.

Last Friday "equity" stepped out of the shadows. We are now learning its real identity.

The state of California is implementing full Marxism before our eyes under the guise of “equity.” And so now there can be no possible doubt if there ever was for anyone: instituting Communism has been what “equity” initiatives have been about all along.

Be informed, not misled.

Now three of its most powerful utility companies in California are saying that they’re going to charge based not on how much of their product was used, but on how much money the user makes.

They and their governor apparently think the timing is right to put Marxism in place.

While Karl Marx didn't actually create the saying, he alone popularized it: 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 

The Marxist principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital, and services.

The California plan.

ABC 7 News reports, "Three major utility companies in California are looking to restructure customer billing, and part of that means customers could be charged based on how much money they make.

Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric filed a joint proposal this week for a flat-rate charge based on income.

Under the proposal, it would cost as little as $15 a month for low-income households and up to $85 more per month for households making more than $180,000 a year.

History does not support Marxism and communism.

Robert Spencer wrote a piece on this. In it he said, "In simpler times, if you bought something, you paid for it. Rich or poor, tall or short, black or white, female or male, wise or foolish, everyone paid the same amount for a product. But in our more enlightened era, we know how unjust that really is. It deprives the poor of access to vital goods and services, and that injustice must be redressed."

That’s what Communism is all about, at least in theory: leveling out economic differences between people by confiscating earnings from the rich and awarding them to those who have less. This is the fundamental reason why Marxism, despite its extraordinarily bloody historical record, still appeals to so many people, rich, poor, and in between: it appears to redress the injustices in life and provide everyone with a decent living.

The problem with it arises from the fact that capitalism is inescapable. It is an iron law. It is not actually an economic system that can be discarded and replaced with a better one. It is simply the way human interactions work. If the California utility companies are going to make people who have more money pay more for the same goods and services they could get for less money if they had less, there will be several results: wealthier people will seek to hide their wealth through various means, so as to pay the lower rate. Some enterprising entrepreneurs will make a good living by helping them do this. So from the Marxism of the utility companies will come more capitalism.

Also, people will see that there is no point in working harder to try to earn more money, as the state will just confiscate it in various ways. Consequently, people will work less, and less hard. The standard of living will decline, because productivity will have declined. This is why Communist countries have always been economic failures: they block the capitalist incentive that people have to work hard, and thus destroy the only path to prosperity.

I agree with him. So does Mark Levin.

American Marxism

In his book, "American Marxism," Mark Levin argues that Democrats and leftist organizations are fueling a Marxist revolution against American culture and society. They’re indoctrinating the public with radical Marxist ideologies like Critical Race Theory through public education; reinforcing these ideas through the media and entertainment; and censoring opposition with “cancel culture.” Levin asserts that if American patriots fail to expose this left-wing brainwashing, Democrats will gain dominion over the American government and society. Ultimately, they’ll create a totalitarian regime in which American values like freedom of speech, free-market capitalism, and private property rights are non-existent.

Jesus was a capitalist

Back in 2010, an old friend of mine, Dr. Bryan Fischer with American Family Association, wrote an article titled, "Jesus Was A Capitalist." 

It has been republished dozens, if not hundreds of times since.

These are some of the points Fischer makes in his article:

• Despite the best efforts of liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis to turn Jesus into a flaming socialist, his own words tell a different story. In fact, the stories that Jesus told could have only come from a capitalist's capitalist.
• For instance, in one of his most famous parables, the Parable of the Talents, Jesus commits a number of politically incorrect sins according to the worldview of Jim Wallis, who unfortunately is trying to recast Jesus in his own image as the Karl Marx of Christendom.
• In the parable of the talents, Jesus refers to a man who called his servants together and "entrusted to them his property." Hold it right there! It was his own property! He owned the means of production — it did not belong to the community at large! The capital used in economic exchange was in private hands! And what he does with his wealth is clearly nobody's business but his own.
• Further, the businessman distributed the talents "to each according to his ability." Sin number two. According to Wallis, Jesus should have had this man distribute his resources "to each according to his need." He should not be entrusting money to people based on ability but rather should be extracting it from them based on ability. After all, in Wallis' world, it is "from each according to his ability." Jesus turns that completely on its head by giving "to each according to his ability.
• The man with five talents earned five more and was given more responsibility and authority as a result. Likewise with the servant who took two talents and turned it into two more.
• There is not a breath here in this story of the importance of equality of outcome. In fact, quite the reverse. Jesus had no intention of having everyone wind up at the same level of income, authority, or responsibility. This businessman believed in equality of opportunity but not in equality of result. Outcome was not dictated by government regulation but rather determined by individual initiative and skill.

Takeaway

So let's sum up. In this story, capital is in private hands. The owner of the capital is free to invest it as he chooses and to entrust his private resources to anyone he chooses. Economic gain comes through investment, risk-taking, and smart choices. The enterprise is based on ability and there is no quota system of any kind in place. Achievement rather than mere effort is rewarded. Accountability rests in the hands of private enterprise rather than in the hands of the government. Laziness is punished rather than rewarded, and resources are not involuntarily transferred from the producers to the non-producers but the other way around.

Bottom line: Jesus taught capitalism. 

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Prayerful.