I Want to Take Those Profits

Very often, the words politicians use are carefully chosen to obscure the essential nature of what they are advocating, and this is true across the political spectrum, and usually on both (or all) sides of any particular issue. But sometimes the specific words used -- often by mistake or in an otherwise unscripted moment -- make everything crystal clear: their true intentions, their views or private property, their views of individual rights, and so on.

Often too the wording used is so weak, that it doesn't commit them to any verifiable, accountable result that we might check on years later -- to see if the program they are pushing actually has the desired effects, not to mention does so without having any negative side-effects that they didn't intend (but that critics often predicted would occur at the outset).

Well, Hillary Clinton this past week managed to do both of these things at once: use specific wording that makes clear her views of capitalism, property, and rights, and at the same time used a string of vague delimiter-words so as to not raise expectations for the program she was proposing. Here is what she said:

The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them in a strategic energy fund, that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of independence.

For the sake of argument, I won't say much about the first sentence. I heard it from many sources, so I'll just assume it is fact. I will note, of course, her use of the name "oil companies" -- a vague reference to distant big business entities, with the attending leftist negative connotations that come with it. And more importantly, like all on the left, she loves to quote the raw profits -- noting that they are a record -- not mentioning that the profit margins for this industry are not anywhere near record levels compared to other industries.

But then there it is: "I want to take those profits...". This is as direct as it gets. A politician boldly saying that they want to use force to take the property of some individuals -- including the stockholders of private oil companies, many of whom are people like you and me. This is of course most commonly done through taxation, which by definition is the use of force to fund government programs, both legitimate government services and everything else it does. But just saying "taxes" is the easy way out for politicians, because most people don't think too much about taxes: they are inevitable, along with death as the saying goes. But she didn't literally say, this time, "I want to tax the profits" -- or even worse, as she and others on the left usually say, "I want to tax the windfall profits" or "I want to tax the excess profits" -- whatever those would even mean in an industry that, again, isn't enjoying record marginal profits as compared with other industries (and even if it was, it would be arbitrary to draw a line and declare anything above it "excess" profit). No, this time she said "I want to take those profits...". Of course, she wouldn't dare take all the profits earned by these companies and their stockholders, we know she is talking about just an industry-specific tax -- but it is instructive to hear her say it as she did.

Is this not revealing of her views of rights, property, and capitalism? What is to stop such a mentality from saying the exact same thing in the future, but about any industry or specific company that she chooses to target? Consider "I want to take the profits of Microsoft, and use them to strategically fund bridging the digital divide." Or "I want to take the profits of Pfizer and Merck, and use them to fund free medicines for everyone." Or "I want to take the profits of LucasFilms and Disney, and use them to fund PBS since people don't seem to be willing to pay for it themselves." Why not?

But that one brief series of statements was rich with political goodness. Read the rest of what she said again, the part where she describes what she will do with the property she is going to take by force from the stockholders of these companies: "I want to put them in a strategic energy fund, that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of independence."

Wow... see all the words in italics -- lots of great politician-speak terms in that one.

To be fair, I (and many people) share the desire to have fuel alternatives that diversify our energy supply so as to free us from reliance on unstable countries run by criminals -- i.e., any leaders who routinely, and on principle, violate the individual rights of their citizens.

But does this desire permit the use of force to take property from some individuals in order to do things that aren't the proper role of government (invent things, create energy, etc.)? Of course not. And she isn't even saying that the government's taking and use of these citizens' property would necessarily produce a measureable result: rather, it would be "strategic", in that it would begin to fund things that would begin to move us towards a direction. And of course it would do these beginnings and movements with all the efficiency that government programs always give us. I can't wait to see the results... it sure sounds exciting!

Having said all of this, I will note that I am in favor of eliminating any subsidies that the "oil companies" get. So don't call me "pro big-business" or "pro oil companies" (I am pro-capitalism.) But this is because I am in favor of eliminating all subsidies that all private companies get. They should all be removed at once, so that no companies -- i.e., no individuals who own, work at, or invest in those companies -- are given unfair advantage over the rest of the marketplace, and by means of the use of force to take property (money) from everyone else who is not so favored by bureaucrats.

It is important to properly distinguish between subsidies, taxation, and tax-breaks. In brief, taxation is the government taking, by force, money or other property from individuals (or companies). Subsidies run in the other direction: they are the giving out of the money collected through taxation to particular individuals or companies. A tax-break is a targeted reduction in taxes, for an individual or company, that would otherwise be taken from them. I feel the need to clarify these three terms because often politicians make it sound as though the elimination of a subsidy or a tax-break, simply because it is changing that status quo, is the same thing as a new or increased tax. Or vice-versa -- that somehow lowering or eliminating a tax is some sort of subsidy for that individual or company. We must always be on the watch for such muddled, erroroneous thinking and deceptive statements from politicians!

So if "oil companies" are getting special subsidies (handouts), then that should stop -- just as it should for all companies. I am also in favor of eliminating tax-breaks for oil-companies -- but again, only because I think there should not be any tax-breaks at all. Tax-breaks are inherently unfair, simply because they don't apply to all individuals (or companies). They are a form of social engineering, and are riddled with bureaucratic inefficiencies, favoritism for some individuals over others, and so on. Indeed, the entire edifice of pork-barrel spending, lobbyists run-amok, and so on that makes the headlines year after year -- all of that would just vanish if the government only funded through the force of taxation (if need be) its legitimate functions (i.e., those that are needed for the protection of individual rights).