If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. In the case of politics, you can always count on Paul's vote.
I believe Spock was correct when he laid dying in the Wrath of Kahn and uttered: "The needs of the many, outweigh...the needs of the few, or in this case the one."
However, my interpretation is far different from those that believe Spock to mean we can take from the few to reward OUR "many". Who is this group that consider themselves the "many"?
We consistently burden the many for the benefits of the few, a union, old people, poor people, gay people, minority people, this people or that people. Everyone has their hand out and perhaps for a justifiable reason, but is one's hand worth more than the others? Who is to say one should benefit at the expense of the many? The many should mean ALL of us - not just a selected group that feels THEY need something.
The problem is to some extent politicians suffer from "constituency syndrome", ok I made up that word - but I think you get the point. In order to garner the votes, they need to give the particular constituency a favor (needs of the few votes out weight the needs of the many).
Our government continues to rob from Peter to give to Paul, just to garner a little more of Paul's support - or in this case vote. Frankly, I believe these politicians could careless WHAT or WHY they are robbing Peter and myopically focused on Paul's vote.
When I hear people championing all kinds of causes, many of them at the expense of others, I can't help but think of them as Paul. Certainly many of their causes can be justified, at least in their minds. These Paul's usually take the moral high ground, while logic, reason, economics, and math are disregarded. Those that bring logic, math, and reason to the table as quickly labeled a cold-hearten Peter. Morality justifications trumps reasoning and often times taken to the extreme as Paul utter's, "If stealing from Peter means saving a life, we should steal all we can!"
As economic depression sets in, regardless of the cause, we see some Peter's actually become Pauls. Pauls become dependent, reliant, and even demand that the State be their caretaker, regardless of Peter's expense. Eventually Paul no longer needs justification, he is ENTITLED. For the government to continue to feed Paul's appetite, it must engorge the Nanny State's Teats with more stolen milk from Peter. To do so we must begin to villainize Peter to justify the continual robbing; "Peter is materialistic, Peter doesn't care about you, Peter values money over people, Peter is greedy, Peter is evil, etc... "
We all know how this ends. Yet we continue to play the charade and every day more Paul's rise up as more Peter's are beaten down - all based on ideological blindness that is justified on some moral high ground.
Are you Peter or are you Paul? I don't expect everyone to answer honestly.