WHY THE HAVES ARE RICH AND THE HAVE-NOTS ARE POOR

by Kirk Brothers

CLICK HERE to return to Index

INTRODUCTION
                                         
     To anyone past the protected years of infancy, it is obvious
that one of the most common concerns of human beings in all lands
and times is a need for economic security to some degree or
other.
     Some of our species appear to have become possessed with a
demonic desire for absolute economic welfare--from the cradle to
the grave.  Wouldn't it be great, they argue, if all human needs
were provided by society?  And from that rhetorical question they
make a quantum leap to disastrous political schemes such as the
ones which have, de facto, bankrupted the United States.
     Socialists, in their perception of the world, tend to view
each individual as a tiny cog on a great cosmic wheel of govern-
ment which, in an orderly fashion, attends to each individual's
needs--not only in terms of the basics of food, shelter and
clothing, but to which have been added such fringe benefits as
expenses for higher education, health care, and so on.
     In defense of their well-meaning but fantastic pipe-dream,
Socialists point to what they see as an evil, if not pernicious,
inequality in wealth--the wide disparity in income between the
two great families of every society: the Haves and the Have-nots.
     It is undeniable that every society to some degree must try
to reconcile the hostility that inevitably afflicts relationships
between rich and poor.  Many writers throughout history have
dwelt upon the subject--some seeing greatly disparate income as a
moral or philosophical issue, and some as the theme for drama or
pathos.
     John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, saw the
amassing of wealth as proof of divine favor--that material riches
showed the possessor to be one of "the elect", and therefore
predestined for even greater rewards in the hereafter.
     Arch-sentimentalist Charles Dickens wrote tear-jerking
fiction in Victorian stereotypes about the noble poor exploited
by the stone-hearted rich--exemplified by Ebenezer Scrooge.
     Rugged individualist and Yukon poet Robert Service lauded
the self-made man, and saw beggars as those who had chosen to
beg.
     And Herbert Spencer saw inequality of wealth as evidence in
human society of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, which
Spencer re-dubbed the Survival of the Fittest.
     Before one may argue a viewpoint, one must state his
premises, so here are mine.
     
THE MIRAGE OF SECURITY
     
     I submit--and will attempt to show by common knowledge and
logic--that nobody, anywhere, at any time, is truly secure.  I
shall further attempt to show that the only way to attain
security is to accept the reality that it does not exist.  Let's
begin with an analysis of the mirage.
     Security is a state of mind.  Furthermore, it exists only in
the human mind, for there is no evidence to suggest that animals
of other species have the intelligence to conceive such abstrac-
tions.
     Obviously, animals in the natural state have no security
whatsoever--they are either predators or prey to some other
species, and the law of the jungle is merciless.  A relatively
few species of mammals coexist in social groups of some kind
(wolf packs, lion prides, e.g.), but many are solitary in life,
love, and death.
     We humans can view other species which do live in social
groups, and observe certain types of behavior in their lives
which might bear on our own concepts of security.  Here are some
observations which should be common knowledge to every intelli-
gent reader.

THE SECURITY OF THE BEEHIVE

     Honey bees have security from the cradle to the grave.  In
this primitive, but surprisingly successful species of social
insects, every material need is provided for within their colo-
nies.
     They are given food and shelter, full employment, a stable
economy, and a simple but effective government.
     But they are, essentially, clones (as laymen use the term),
whose every daily act is programmed genetically--specialized by
the food their nurse bees fed them while they were still larvae
in the comb.
     Most honey bees are sterile females, who do all the work--
from gathering nectar to making honey, to cleaning and protecting
the hive, to feeding (and cleaning up after) the drones, to
tending the nursery and, first and foremost, serving the needs of
their Queen--the only fertile female.
     And when the summer draws to a close and the weather turns
chilly, the drones will be stung to death and the population will
undergo attrition to save food over the long winter.
     Of course, they have no intellectual activities because they
have no brains to speak of.  Their behavior is bred into them,
and one worker is virtually identical to every other.  Individu-
ality does not exist, nor any freedom of action whatsoever.
     But they have security--from the cradle to the grave--which
works out at perhaps 120 days.
     So the first observation one might make, by analogy, is that
when security takes the driver's seat on the Socialist Express,
all other human values go out the window.  Economic security in
human society has a deadly price--absolute conformity to rigid
rules and regulations by an all-powerful government which
purports to be benevolent.
     Name just one all-powerful government which has ever been
benevolent--anywhere in the world, at any time in history--if you
please.
     Next observation.
                
WHAT IS SECURITY?

     Many writers beg the question--or try to put some sort of
dollar-figure on the concept--and one of the more familiar ones
is the old saw that the difference between prosperity and poverty
is fifty cents.  Prosperity, according to the saying, is having
two bits more than you need, and poverty is being two bits short.
     Like all simplistic sayings which have become merely clever
slogans, there is a kernel of truth in the remark--the truth
being that one's perception of poverty or prosperity is geared to
one's needs, and not mere wants.
     Our needs for survival are few and simple--enough food for a
day or so, a place to sleep tonight, something to occupy our
minds, and--with luck--someone to love who loves us back.  Except
for the latter, most of us have our survival needs--which is not
true in many benighted lands--and if America erupts in civil war
as seems likely in a few short decades at the most, even first
essentials will be in extremely short supply indeed.
     As we pointed out in WHY AND HOW AMERICA MUST CRASH, virtu-
ally nobody is satisfied with what he already has--he always
wants MORE.  These wants are not a matter of necessity but simple
greed.  This trait might, of course, be attributable to our ter-
riterritorial instinct of always wanting to expand "our" space.
     Territorialism is strictly a male trait among mammals and
birds--an instinct to pre-empt a certain area for his exclusive
use for hunting or sexual dominance.  The so-called sport of
cock-fighting, which is popular among bloodthirsty gamblers,
consists of bringing two hooded cocks, whose natural talons have
been augmented with sharp steel claws, into a small pit--and
removing their hoods.  The immediate reaction of each bird is to
see the other as a rival intruding in "his" territory--for which
a male bird will kill.
     In mammals a fight usually ends with the loser fleeing the
winner, or perhaps assuming a female position for the winner to
briefly mount for symbolic copulation.  A young wolf who chal-
lenges a pack leader is usually subdued in this manner without
being killed--the pack has killer instincts only toward their
prey.
     Among humans, especially when race or religion is at issue,
a fight to the death is not at all uncommon.  We may witness mass
genocide in Rwanda, for example, or equivalent atrocities in what
was Yugoslavia, but which is now a gerrymandered mess of Serbia,
Bosnia and Croatia, with conflict still erupting over religious
differences.  In India, Sikhs and Hindus have waged sporadic war
against each other in recent years, and we are only too familiar
with the Catholic-Protestant hatreds in Northern Ireland.
     Territorialism is the instinctual basis of nationalism, and
as soon as a nation's flag is waved before the people, most of
them (the mentally retarded majority) will be ready to fight in a
"war" against whatever "crisis" the nation's politicians manufac-
ture for propaganda purposes--to distract the people from the
real issues.  I'll have more to say on this factor in my next
excerpt.
     For our purposes in this discussion, it is enough to know
that lower animals mark their space by urinating at frequent
intervals to leave their scent, which is recognizable to others
of their own species.  Humans may mark their space symbolically
by acquiring more luxurious homes, bigger and more expensive
automobiles, and the latest fads in consumer goods--such as
personal computers and a page of their own on the World Wide Web.
     Americans appear to be, of all nationalities, the ones most
prone to this sort of thing.  The story is told that some years
ago the Indian government sponsored a number of learned academic
theses from noted scholars worldwide, on the subject of the
elephant.  The English scholar was first, with a matter-of-fact
monograph entitled "Elephants as They Are."  The French scholar
contributed a paper on "The Love Life of the Elephant."  The
Italian scholar wrote a paper called "Eating Habits of The Ele-
phant."  The German scholar naturally disappeared into the jungle
for two years, and returned with five volumes on "The Elephant
From Beginning to End".  And the American wrote a pamphlet on the
theme, "Bigger and Better Elephants".
     If it be true (and it appears to me that it is) that Ameri-
cans are the most profligate of all human beings, it follows that
they are the worst possible judges of what is truly necessary.
Therefore any rational person who advises Americans to downsize
their inflated expectations of well-being by government handouts
of other people's money is unpopular.
     But it is only by expecting little that one can face reality
with at least composure--though not great joy.  In "Porgy and
Bess", set in a black ghetto in Charleston, South Carolina, Porgy
lives in a tiny sparsely-furnished room with no lock on the door,
existing by begging for coins on the streets.  The Gershwins
captured his cheerful acceptance of poverty in an unforgettable
song--he was satisfied with plenty of nothing.
     One might argue, of course, that an opera takes considerable
license with real life (so did Dickens!), but Porgy's artistic
statement of happiness achieved by low expectations strikes a
true note in a world bombarded with the dissonant chorus of "buy
now, pay later".
     But our topic is not the real nature of poverty and its
exaggeration by grandiose hopes and wishes, but the real reason
the Haves are rich and the Have-nots are poor.
     
EQUAL DIVISION OF WEALTH
     
     Many Socialists have long held that, to be "fair", wealth
should be divided equally among the entire population.  Perhaps
it might be more precise to lay that demand on the doorstep of
Soviet Communists--but, as George Bernard Shaw (a Fabian Soci-
ialist) once said, "Socialism is the same as Communism, only
better English" (shades of Henry Higgins!).
     The story was also told of an English valet in the 1930's
who used his evening off to attend Communist Party meetings.  But
one week, after a speech on redistribution of wealth, he defected
from the Party--and his employer asked him the reason for his
change of heart.  "Well, sir," said the valet, "last Friday our
speaker explained to us that if all the wealth were divided
equally we would each have fifty pounds."
     "What's wrong with that?" asked his employer.
     "Well, sir," said the valet, "I've already saved fifty-five
pounds."
     Which is as good an introduction as any I could give to the
main argument in this article.

MAINTAINING EQUALITY

     Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that all the wealth
in the world has been divided equally among all persons, and even
Ross Perot has not a cent more than any Bowery wino.  Okay, here
we are--everybody has exactly the same amount of money to start a
new round of the game, Security.  But first understand that, in
this game, we are playing "for keeps".  If you lose, you don't
get your money back when the game is over.
     All right--everybody and his brother has exactly the same
amount of money.  The game begins.
     And it will almost immediately become obvious to anyone
that, while players have the same amount of money, they don't
have the same amount of brains.
     In WHY AND HOW AMERICA MUST COLLAPSE, I pointed out the most
obvious fact in the world--that fully one-half of the world's
population is below average in intelligence.  If you somehow
missed that article, I'll repeat my proof.  The word "average"
means the mid-point in any population measured for any criterion
--in this case, intelligence.
     We're not concerned with what intelligence is, or how it is
measured, or whether the tests are "fair" to the stupid.  The
only relevant fact is that intelligence is the ability to succeed
at some task--and if one determines a midpoint in the population
by any mathematical means, one half of the population must fall
above the midpoint--or average--and one half below.
     Without getting sidetracked by argument over the validity of
IQ scores, let's assume that 100 is the midpoint, or average. 
One half of the population of any country, or the world as a
whole, is on the "bright" side, and the other half is on the
"retarded" side.
     Let the competition begin!
     And never forget that life IS competitive.  Socialists and
other pipe-dreamers choose to play down the competitive element
as somehow undignified or antisocial.  According to their theory,
we are supposed to be equal and totally cooperative--like so much
corn meal mush.  If you prefer a more dignified simile, try "like
so many clones in a beehive"--living a mindless existence accord-
ing to an irreversible genetic program in which individual dif-
ferences have been ruthlessly eradicated.
     In the beehive only survival of the species is important--
and Nature can wipe out even an entire species on some whim, as
the dinosaurs were exterminated.  Think about it.

ON WITH THE GAME

     In this play-for-keeps game--winner take all--half the
players are bright and half are stupid.
     Now, Americans are great hypocrites.  We always cheer for
the underdog.  But we bet on the favorite.
     If the underdog wins, we think it's right.  If the favorite
wins, tough luck for the underdog--but we won our bet.
     Okay, the game of Security starts with the first roll of the
cosmic dice.  Will the underdogs (the stupid ones) win?
     Don't bet on it.  Here are the odds.
     The odds are ten to one that the stupid have only one talent
(and not too great) to offer an employer.  They may be good at
digging a ditch or mopping a floor, stuffing an envelope or
picking up garbage.  But they are not competitive--they want to
get a tiny, comfortable niche in life doing their one thing
during work hours, making enough money to afford what rich people
have.
     The odds are also ten to one that the bright ones have two
or three talents--they're versatile, and can do more than one
simple chore.  They're ready to compete by learning new tasks the
changing job market might demand.
     The odds are the same that the stupid don't communicate very
well--they lack basic language skills and, worse, any sensitivity
for the psychology of the people they're supposed to communicate
with.
     It's also a safe bet that the bright ones are good if not
superior communicators--they can "sell" themselves to an employ-
er, and create a favorable impression by some sort of social
graces.
     Likewise, it's probable that the stupid have only short-term
goals, and demand instant gratification of all their wants.
     On the other hand, the bright have long-term plans, and are
willing to defer gratification of some wants to allow them to
reach more important goals first.  Bright people can set intelli-
gent priorities, but stupid people make no subtle distinctions.
     The stupid have no great intellectual capacity, and there-
fore have no sales resistance, and no talent for negotiating a
better deal or simply walking away from a bad one.
     The bright have greater sales resistance, and greater sales
ability to "con" the stupid into long-term debt to pay for over-
priced and essentially meaningless status symbols.
     The stupid have never learned to be frugal, to plan and
stick to a budget, and to control the size of their family by
birth control.
     The bright are by nature more thrifty, disciplined, and
ready to defer children until they can afford to provide for
them.
     I think that's enough odds for a start.  The end result is
that the stupid very quickly lose their money to the bright, and
therefore wind up precisely where they were before the Socialists
"solved" their problems by redistributing wealth--on grounds that
it is only "fair" to do so.  Fair to whom?
     Finally, of course, if a stupid person loses his own money,
Socialists are quick to give him an "entitlement" so that he can
lose other people's money as quickly as he lost his own.
     As Herbert Spencer wrote, "The ultimate result of shielding
men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

THE CHECK IS IN THE MAIL

     There is only one rational way in which society may assist
genuine hardship cases without going bankrupt through foolhardy
(misguided) charity.  That's the "old-fashioned" way of (a)
establishing institutions for those who are incapable of taking
care of themselves; and, (b) assisting the needy by distributing
packages of food and clothing, instead of money ostensibly to be
spent for food and clothing.
     But that means dedicated work by both social and govern-
mental agencies (remember that society and government are not the
same).  Benevolent organizations, such as churches or founda-
tions, which practice charity for spiritual rather than political
motives, must depend upon volunteers to do the physical labor of
distributing material assistance to those in dire straits.
     When a disaster strikes, such as a hurricane or earthquake,
it is common to see a spontaneous outpouring of volunteerism by
men and women from all walks of life--"pitching in" during a time
of crisis to help ease the pain and suffering of innocent vic-
tims.
     The problem is that these volunteers can give just so much
before their idealism comes to a screeching halt.  A few days or
perhaps weeks is all the time and work they can give.  Welfare
cases, unfortunately, tend to be a lifetime drag on the rest of
society.  So it's easy to think, "Why not just give them money
and let them take care of themselves?"
     The reason is that money or a substitute is easily negoti-
able for anything besides the intended purpose--there is, in
fact, a sizable black market selling microwaves and televisions
for food stamps.  The reality is that, once the government check
is in the mail, bureaucrats don't concern themselves with what
happens to the money.  Why should they?  They did their job, and
the money isn't theirs--or so they like to believe.
     The obvious fact is that government is the most inefficient
mechanism in the United States, snarled in red tape with no real
oversight on how money is spent.  Every so often we are treated
to a "shocking" expose of government waste--such as the Penta-
gon's paying forty-five dollars per ash tray in a bomber.  Or
perhaps nine dollars for an ordinary screwdriver.  Usually the
public-spirited citizen who exposes the scandal is fired.
     To any rational person it is obvious that the United States
is rapidly degenerating into a bureaucratic madhouse where the
inmates are in charge.  This is the true picture of Socialism in
America.  Our curse is that it's not news to anyone--and no one
cares.

SUMMARY
     
     In general, the Haves are rich and the Have-nots are poor
because the Haves are more intelligent.  The ability to earn,
save, manage, and wisely spend money is usually a function of
superior intelligence.
     Does this mean that all smart people are rich?  Not at all. 
Perhaps the lowest paid (but most highly respected) profession
for many years in the past was that of a college professor.  But
a man who chose to teach had a "calling" to do so--he felt an
almost spiritual obligation to help keep alive the learning of
centuries past.
     Life on a campus is, on the whole, pleasant and intellectu-
ally stimulating--which in itself is an attraction for those who
enter academic life.  Except in universities with a policy of
"publish or perish" (do research or get fired), pressures of
mainstream life are seen from the comfortable distance of the
ivory tower.  In short, pay which was traditionally low (compared
to salaries of college graduates in the business world) was
adequate for a man or woman of modest needs who felt the compen-
sations in non-monetary terms made the game well worth the can-
dle.
     So, in some environments, the most intelligent members of
any society might be among its poorest in terms of material
wealth.  But as a general rule, the inability to earn, save,
manage, and wisely spend money is a sign of defective intelli-
gence.
     Fifty percent of the world population is defective, rela-
tively speaking.  And politicians, in catering to the fools to
garner their votes, betray those who must pay the bill.
     The problem is that the bill is now so high it cannot be
paid.  And that's why we're headed toward economic/political
collapse, and must suffer through a healing crisis willy-nilly,
or withdraw from the mainstream to eke out a precarious existence
in remote survival communes.  The crunch could come in ten years'
time.
     Meanwhile, as in the last days of the Roman Empire, it's
time for bread and circuses.  The Caesars distracted Romans from
the imminent collapse of the Empire by distributing free bread,
and providing bigger and better circuses in the Coliseum--bigger
and better lions against bigger and better gladiators.
     In our time, Washington is handing out bread in the form of
welfare checks, and distracting the majority of voters from the
real issues by manufacturing a false crisis--called THE WAR ON
DRUGS.
     I call it lunacy, and I'd like to prove it next time.