The plan sounded fair at the time, but why did I pay for everything?

By David McElroy · November 27, 2012

I was out getting my mail one day not long ago when I noticed several of my neighbors in the street talking. I stepped across the street to be neighborly and see what the neighborhood gossip might be.

“Hey, let me tell you about the new idea we’ve been talking about,” said Karl. He’s sort of the intellectual in our neighborhood. I’m not sure what he does, but he spends a lot of time at the library working on a book. “We’ve decided that we need a neighborhood swimming pool for our street. I figure we can have it ready to go by the time it’s warm enough in the spring.”

“Sounds great, Karl,” I said, “but wouldn’t that be pretty expensive?”

“None of us can afford it alone,” Karl said, “but if we put our resources together, it shouldn’t be so bad.”

The other folks all seemed to think it was a good idea, so I told him I might be interested if the price was right. They told me they’d let me know what they figured out, and I went back home.

A few days later, there was a knock at my door. It was Karl and a couple of his friends.

“I have great news,” Karl said. “We took a vote and decided to move ahead with the community swimming pool project. We’ll be letting you know how much you owe as soon as we have the figures all put together. Isn’t that great?”

I admit that I’d liked the pool idea, but I was a little miffed that they had decided without me, so I asked why I wasn’t involved in the vote.

“We were sitting over at my place talking about it and there were six of us there,” Karl said. “Since there are just 10 houses in the neighborhood and all six of us agreed it was a good idea, that was clear right there. Six out of 10 were already in favor, so majority rules and we’re going to do it. You’ll love the plan we have picked out.”

I thought about it for a minute and it didn’t sit well with me, but Karl was right. Everybody knows that majority rule is the only fair way to decide anything. It really wasn’t the greatest time to pitch in on a project like this, but since I was only one of 10, I could find a way to foot 10 percent of the bill. So I didn’t object any further.

About a week later, I noticed Karl and some of the neighbors marking off the spot for the pool with somebody I didn’t know, so I stepped over to see how it was coming.

“The doors to the clubhouse will open here to give better access to the area for the loungers,” the stranger was saying. “I can arrange it so everybody in the pool will be able to see the big-screen TV from that area so they can watch and soak up the rays at the same time.”

I was introduced to Billy Bob, who I was told was the contractor selected for the job.

I told Karl and Billy Bob that I was surprised to hear talk of a clubhouse and big television and such. I thought we were just building a nice little swimming pool.

“That’s what we were thinking at first, too, but Billy Bob here has shown us we were thinking too small,” Karl said. “It turns out that all the neighborhoods building pools these days include a clubhouse. We couldn’t afford to be seen as not keeping up with the latest trends, you know. Besides, that’s what the majority wanted. I figured you’d agree, but since the majority already agreed, did it really matter?”

I admitted that he was right. Everybody knows that majority rule is the only fair way. And I had liked the pool idea. I wasn’t happy about seeing the cost rising, but I was still only one of 10 houses, so I could deal with paying a tenth of the cost. I didn’t see how some of the other families were ever going to be able to afford it, though. Several people were unemployed because of the bad economy and a couple more had really low-paying jobs. But I figured if this is what everybody wanted, they’d all figure out how to pay their tenth of the cost, too.

Billy Bob said the project was going to cost about a million dollars, which was far more than I’d ever expected, but I figured I could swing the $100,000 somehow. I have the nicest house in the neighborhood and I do pretty well for myself, so if they could do it, I’d find a way, too.

Just two days later, Karl came to my door again.

“Hey, we’re ready to start work on the pool project, so I’m going around to collect the checks,” Karl said.

I’d been expecting it, so I was prepared. It hadn’t been easy to re-arrange my finances and find the $100,000, but I’d done it without borrowing. I was happy about that part. I told Karl I just needed to know the exact amount. Karl looked at the paperwork he was holding.

“Well, according to this, your portion comes to $700,000,” he said.

I thought I’d heard him wrong, so I asked him to repeat that. He did, but I still heard the same number. I told Karl that I was confused. Surely the pool’s cost hadn’t jumped to $7 million without me knowing about it. My one-tenth share of the $1 million budget should only be $100,000.

“Well, that’s just not the way it works, you know,” Karl said. “The cost is $1 million, but we use what’s called progressive taxation in figuring what everybody owes. Five of the households don’t have much income right now, so we’re not asking them to kick anything in. You make the most money and you live in the biggest house, so it’s only fair that you pay for most of it. I mean, you can afford it and we can’t. It’s only fair.”

My head was spinning. I wasn’t prepared for shelling out $700,000, but even more than that, I couldn’t understand why I was paying 70 percent of the cost, but I only had 10 percent of the say in what was done.

“You can’t expect the little guy to pay for things,” Karl said. “It’s only fair that we take from everybody according to what he has and what he earns. Everybody knows that. And since the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of the taxes in the country, it’s clearly fair.”

I pointed out that I didn’t have 70 percent of the decision-making, so that didn’t seem right.

“One man, one vote,” Karl said. “Everybody knows that’s the only fair way. When it comes to money, progressive taxation is fair. When it comes to power and voting, you can’t have any more say than anybody else. You wouldn’t want people to think you were greedy, would you?”

I told Karl that I definitely didn’t want anyone thinking I was greedy. He was right in everything he said. The tax system takes money according to how much you make — and punishes earning money — but power went to everyone equally, whether they paid anything or not. It must be fair and just. Everyone said so.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Karl said. “That’s all you need to remember. Hey, I like that. I think I’ll use that in my book.”

I realized that Karl was right. Majority rule was fair. And it was only fair that rich people like me paid our “fair share.” I’d have to borrow money so the free-loading neighbors could use the pool. I could see already that they were going to be using it more than I was, because I was going to have to work harder to pay, while most of them had little or nothing to do.

But the more I thought about it, I realized this was right in line with the political principles this country is all about. I couldn’t object or I’d be nothing but a greedy man who wanted to keep his own money.

Majority rule was the only right and moral way. Everybody said so. I’d always believed it. So surely this was fair. Right?

Share on Social Networks

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

For four years, Donald Trump’s supporters screamed that everything that went wrong was the fault of Joe Biden. They were sometimes right and they were sometimes delusional. (Anybody who knows me understands that I can’t stand Biden any more than I can stand Trump, just for different reasons.) But for two months, Trump has rampaged through U.S. political life — vandalizing pretty much everything in sight — and the vast majority of his supporters are silent at best. Many watch as he blows up the world economy and they make excuses for him. They’re in absolute denial, even about things that Trump is doing very intentionally. Anybody who understands economics and history knows that tariffs are a terrible idea from a pragmatic point of view. Anybody who values individual freedom knows that tariffs are massive taxes on individuals — and they’re a tool of political control over the ability of people to trade freely. Trump is the antithesis of everything which political conservatives stood for just a few years ago. It’s far past time for people who claim to be conservatives to reclaim the principles and values which they used to claim — and stop this mad man before he can accelerate the day when we experience economic and social collapse. Open your eyes to reality and reject this lying narcissist.

Related Posts