X Explores political ideology

[Exsubmariner]

Alright,
It's really late and I should be sleeping, but I have indigestion from a late dinner so I'm very uncomfy and sleeping is not in the program until the stomach settles down. So, that being said, I thought I might babble for a while about things I think about politics. I'm hoping this might lead to some good discussion, possible challenging of my ideas and some education as a result.
First and formost, I believe the reason for a political ideology is for the benefit of oneself. That's it. Pure and simple. If you want to look at it in terms of producers and non producers, for example (this may be over simplified), producers should adopt an ideology that the get to keep what they produce, non producers, on the other hand, must adopt an ideology that will allow them to get the most of what the producers produce. The perfect state of bliss, I imagine would be on the top of the pile, where you get to consume everything but produce nothing (i.e. own the pile).
I would go further and say that those who proclaim an interest in the "greater good" are simply out doing so because they think it will get them votes. I think the "greater good" spiel has become synonomous with redistribution of wealth. In other words, a political platform proclaiming the interests of others is simply a way of buying votes by promising redistribution of wealth (taxes on the producers) to the non producers.
Now, this is where it gets interesting. Define the terms. What is a producer? Does what is produced have to be a tangible thing? Obviously not. There are a great many contributions made in the world by people who simply come up with good ideas. More interestingly, a non producer is much simpler to define. They produce nothing of value and consume everything. Imagine a government bureaucrat who simply writes welfare checks. This in my mind is the definition of non production. The entire function of a job like this is to take wealth, redistribute it, and consume resources in the process. I might go so far as to say this is a negative producer.
Are there benefits of redistributing wealth? Well, that's kind of sticky. You might prevent a crack addict from breaking into someones home and stealing their property by giving them a bi weekly check, but you keep the crack dealer with a ready customer who always has a supply (limited as it may be) of cash. So maybe the effects cancel themselves out even though they might reduce one type of crime by encouraging another. In effect taxpayer funds as protection money to drug dealers. This is just an example of course. I don't mean to offend any crackheads or dealers by being to judgemental. The same might also be said of a stock broker, for example.
Then, there is ownership. Ownership is the best of all worlds. The ownership of stock which pays a portion of the companies profits is optimal in that it provides ownership of a slice of economy. You get the benefit of what is being produced, plus some of the profit from it's production. Allowing you, in turn to consume what is produced with the profit. All the while, you gain benefit from both the producers and the non producers in that the producers loose enough of what they produce to the non producers to never be able to afford to own. Which in turn allows you to maintain ownership and buy more.
Wealth is a very interesting thing. I have read studies that suggest there is an exponential function to wealth, where the top one percent reap more benefits of all labor produced each year than the 99% of the people below them on the food chain.
Money is also an interesting tool for the harvesting of labor. I pay a mortgage every month that is rather large. I will pay more than three times the total purchase price of my home by the time it is paid off, even though I am currently eight years ahead. I also pay property tax at the rate of 2% of my homes value every year. I don't own the home, my mortgage company does, who harvest my labor monthly. All total I figure 1/2 of all the $ value I produce in the economy every month is consumed by taxes and interest. In other words, it goes to non producers and owners. I consume the rest of my paycheck every month buying food, gas, utilities and save a little and then buy things to make me comfortable. All in all, it isn't a bad deal. I am a well kept slave. I have enough free time to pursue my passions, but probably will never get to own my own destiny in an economic sense.
This leaves me at the following conclusion. I don't really care what God anyone prays to, I don't care who they screw, I don't care what they teach their children. My objective in life is to pay off my house and be able to buy enough stock (that pays dividends) to have enough income to be able to support my bills and pay the property taxes. I doubt I will ever achieve that. I am beginning to see any owner or non producer to be an obsticle to that. This leaves me desparately wanting of a political candidate who will put policies into place which allow me to keep more of what I produce, allowing me to buy more ownership. As for the non producers, I say I would be better off if they were forced to actually produce for themselves, along the lines of Adam Smith's philosophy that in a free market, ones pursuit of ones own interest will benefit the overall market. I feel there are probably a lot of people out there in the same boat as me, but who have no idea which politicians to back as most of them have been bought up by owners.
That's all for now. I think I have cured my insomnia and the brick that was in my gut has dissolved. I welcome any discussion or critique of the way I view the world.
X