Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the more a nation steals… the poorer they become. This applies not only to taxation, but to annexation, and plunder from foreign adversaries. How could I say such a counter intuitive thing? Because history proves it so. Spain had a heyday when it was stealing gold from Mesoamerica, the Islamic golden age coincided with their great theft of land, people, and property, and the Mongols covered themselves in wealth until the loot was cut off. In every case they all became utterly poor once the plunder ran out. This is partially because unearned wealth makes a nation, city, or people indolent. Why work when there’s plenty without working? A culture of sloth is built up and soon those people will suffer. Moreover, the longer the culture of indolence is held, the poorer they will become.
History is ruthless. It shows us what has worked and what has failed. The problem with using the lessons of history is that they insult us so. Many of us want a thing to work that hasn’t, so to them history is an enemy. Nevertheless, history teaches us that great unearned wealth creates indolence and that indolent people soon become poor. Examples of this are numerous, but I can’t think of a single one where wealth created a strong work ethic, or where indolence created wealth. This is true not only of nations, but of individuals as well. “Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations,” is based on observed life arcs. Kids who are lavished with wealth and are above consequences turn out to be lazy, entitled, and arrogant. Other than the Buddha, I’m not sure there is a counter example.
Why wouldn’t great wealth create entitled, lazy, and arrogant people? Not having to work for it gives a false sense of entitlement. Luxury, then, is a right, not a privilege enjoyed by those who work hard for it. This undermines the work ethic, because if money comes to someone without effort, the idea of labor for money is foreign. Others scratch for pennies while the lazy and entitled person lives in opulence, a luxury that destroys humility. Moreover, being above the law makes one arrogant. Such treatment would turn the head of almost anyone. As in the small, so shall it be in the great… the Hermetic principle. This means as in the individual, so shall it be in the State. If a lazy, arrogant, and entitled person doesn’t prosper… why would a lazy, entitled, and arrogant state prosper?
When the plunder stops both individuals and states become poor. This is because they have nothing to fall back on… no skills, ethics, or abilities. The third-generation rich person becomes homeless, because they can’t fend for themselves. The state that has its plunder cut off can’t buy its way out of catastrophe, so it collapses at the first incident. When the state flounders, however, all the individuals in that state are subject to the disaster. That isn’t the case when one person fails. This makes a state that exists by plunder all the more dangerous. That state will take down all the people in it when it goes down. In the meantime, it’s a great party on the Titanic. What then constitutes plunder? How do states live by plunder? Most importantly, though, how do we wean a state from plunder?
Plunder is any ill-gotten gain. Robbery, looting another state’s treasury, and taxation are all forms of plunder. Graft in government is another form of plunder. States, like people, would prefer not to have to provide value for their sustenance. They lack a work ethic and/or conscientiousness. Why? Because they were never inculcated. As we see, plunder is all too easy a trap for people and governments to fall into. That trap then destroys the animal, person, or state… it’s money for nothing. This means the only way to fix it is to wean the state or individual off free money “plunder.” Cutting it off will collapse the system, but allowing it to continue will collapse it far worse over time. Slowly cutting the plunder and forcing the lazy to earn a living instead is the best path. Ironically, unearned wealth results in poverty.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
