Why socialism is inherently evil 13

Socialism is inherently evil. There is no way it can be put into practice that will make it good.

Professor Walter Williams clearly explains why.

He writes:

Evil acts are given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions, such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution, caring for the less fortunate, and the will of the majority. Let’s have a thought experiment to consider just how much Americans sanction evil.

Imagine there are several elderly widows in your neighborhood. They have neither the strength to mow their lawns, clean their windows and perform other household tasks nor the financial means to hire someone to help them. Here’s a question that I’m almost afraid to ask: Would you support a government mandate that forces you or one of your neighbors to mow these elderly widows’ lawns, clean their windows and perform other household tasks? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as fines, property confiscation or imprisonment? I’m hoping, and I believe, that most of my fellow Americans would condemn such a mandate. They’d agree that it would be a form of slavery — namely, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if, instead of forcing you or your neighbor to actually perform weekly household tasks for the elderly widows, the government forced you or your neighbor to give one of the widows $50 of your weekly earnings? That way, she could hire someone to mow her lawn or clean her windows. Would such a mandate differ from one under which you are forced to actually perform the household task? I’d answer that there is little difference between the two mandates except the mechanism for the servitude. In either case, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.

I’m guessing that most Americans would want to help these elderly ladies in need but they’d find anything that openly smacks of servitude or slavery deeply offensive. They might have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced (taxed) to put money into a government pot. A government agency would then send the widows $50 to hire someone to mow their lawns and perform other household tasks. This collective mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it doesn’t change the fact that a person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of others. Putting the money into a government pot simply conceals an act that would otherwise be deemed morally depraved.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, confiscation and intimidation, to accomplish what are often seen as noble goals — namely, helping one’s fellow man.

We rather think of that claimed objective as a pretext by which the imposers of socialism try to cover their real motivation – a lust for power.

Helping one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets to do so is [might be – ed] laudable and praiseworthy. Helping one’s fellow man through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation. Tragically, most teachings, from the church on down, support government use of one person to serve the purposes of another; the advocates cringe from calling it such and prefer to call it charity or duty.

The church began the idea. Christianity introduced the notion that charity is a duty and the highest form of morality.

… The bottom line is that we’ve betrayed much of the moral vision of our Founding Fathers. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who had fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison rose on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Tragically, today’s Americans — Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative — would hold such a position in contempt and run a politician like Madison out of town on a rail.    

Posted under Collectivism, Commentary, Socialism by Jillian Becker on Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 13 comments.

Permalink
  • donl

    It was in the 1500s…Calvin, Martin Luther…one of those friggin’ theists of the day…pitched the idea of compulsory schooling to the emperor/king/tyrant of the day on the idea of indoctrinating, under threat of violence, that the folks must obey churh and state…or state and church…OK, they have to obey. The collective WE became mandatory schooling and the marriage of church and state took place. Our founders tried to implement a divorce…They really hated christians especially…they’re baaack!

    And, why…because you get to heaven and the king looks out for you.

    Many years ago in the movie “The Americization of Emily”, starring Julie Andrews and Rockford (James Garner), Garner gave a great speech wherein he stated wars won’t end until the lies of duty and country are abolished and we quit erecting statutes to the heroes. Nationalism and militarism are the empty emotive tools of the state.

    Kennedy’s line – And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.

    The correct line, if individual rights and freedom are the principle, would be: …ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for yourself and what you can do personally or with other private citizens for those you care about.

    Ludwig von Mises has good comments (Not looking them up, I think I’m close.) Socialism appears to succeed because it promises love and “feel good” emotions. Socialism will always fail, however, because it is based on the fallacy of SHOULD. Free-Market Capitalism will always succeed because it’s based on the reality of IS.

    Written by a hardcore theist-socialist, Francis Bellamy, in the early 1900s, virtually every student, every day, in every classroom around the country, for nearly a century, has stood and recited the pledge of allegiance…today an argument rages over the insertion of the the words “under god”. No one ever stops to realize that the pledge at is presented is unAmerica, anti-founder and anti-constitutional. The offending word is “indivisible”. It is the intentional denial of states rights.

    Here’s a real Pledge of Allegiance:

    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united States of America and to the republic for which it stands; a union of free and independent states; instituted and empowered by the consent of the governed; with individual sovereignty, liberty and equality of justice for all.

    Lincoln did not save the union…he created the state. The government is not empowered to protect you from you, build railroads, control healthcare…etceteras. The FED funds the state that takes the $50 from citizens to help the old ladies but actually gives the $50 to the politicians who passed the law…indivisible is central government…is that really what you pledge to?

    I ramble again.

    • Jillian Becker

      Thanks for this interesting and informative comment, donl. We agree with almost all you say.

      Just one caveat. We are FOR the nation state.

      • donl

        Wow…I am surprised. Or, maybe I don’t understand your definition of nation state…I have to believe that’s it.

        Are you saying you don’t believe in a State’s right to cessation or nullification? Are you indicating that nationalism is good…given it is the essential element of collectivism and the ‘duty before self’ conditioning? It would seem, if I’m understanding, that your caveat in favor of a nation state actually supports the mandates of a central government…as desribed in the article above? I know that can’t be your notion.

        The Founders were quite specific in their agreement that limited central government and strong States were essential to protecting the unalienable rights – backbone of check & balance…destroyed by Lincoln. A strong unified central government precludes freedom, in favor of edict, whereas independent states allowed voting by foot..don’t like Arizona…move! The nation state rules that out .

        Independent states in a confederacy with right of sessation forces the federal government adhere to a constitution and seek agreement from the governed (consensus of states) on important issues…like war, the currency. The current nation state America ignores that…see how well it’s working?

        Nationalism is the device for power grabbing: Ohio Sen John Sherman (brother of the Union General) in 1863 encouraged his Republican party peers to “Nationalize as much as possible…even the currency…make men love their country before their states…All interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinated to the interests of the government. This is America’s birth of the state. Is that the nation state you are for?

        This is certainly contrary to the founders, and the Tea Party, that government is the servant and the governed are the masters. Seems to me that 600 years of compulsory miseducation has too many people looking at liberty…freedom which is always FROM government…backwards. Jefferson, or one of them, did indicate that government is best when close. I start with self , then…neighborhood, town/city, county, state and then country (as you might guess…never god…LOL).

        Now I do understand a pride in the principles of the United States…but when a government breeches it’s contract: “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…” Does the nation state idea allow for this right? Or, would you think it OK to send troops to keep the union together…making it a union by force…not by freedom of choice?

        Again…nation state…nationalism…central government usurping powers left to the States and the people…Lucy you need to ‘splain! LOL

        • Jillian Becker

          You are viewing the question only as it applies to the United States of America. As far as the USA is concerned, I agree with what you say. But in the world at large (now that the days of Empire are over – and some empires were good, some bad) there is only a choice between the nation state or unworkable and tyrannous conglomerations of nations under centralized oligarchic dictatorships, like the EU or – worst of all – world government. (Unless one opts for anarchism, and I am too mature and experienced to do that. I know that individual freedom is only possible under the rule of law.)

          • REALBEING

            So…after reading your statement, liz, I can see why the U.S.A. doesn’t have much freedom…we are sans the rule of law!

          • donl

            OK…understood. I agree! But boy, now you think I’m able to consider ‘worrrrlddddviews’…geez, you ask too much of this old fat guy!

    • REALBEING

      Good piece, donl. What naturally renders these first ideas which correspond to our country’s founding impotent is that those in power, (the majority of both prevailing parties) simply refuse to install ALL of these immortal and historical facts as guideposts for running our country. ( Or sometimes just getting the hell out of the way!) They seem to be fixed on their quest for superiority over the other side of the aisle….some more-so than others.

      IOW, “I’d rather be right, right now, then to be effective in the future when it comes to following our Constitution, and all other lessons learned over our unique history.”

      As Mises stated, “Socialism will always fail.” The portion of which he didn’t relate to was that unlike Capitalism, Socialism must borrow heavily from a major tenet of Capitalism…..that tenet is a financial system!

      Socialism is unnatural, as it attempts to stand on two islands at the same time. One island belongs exclusively to Capitalism. Capitalism is it’s own beginning and ending.

      Seldom in Nature will you find Socialism. The lion in Nature cannot depend on the giraffe laying it’s body down in front of the lion in order for the lion to take it’s sustenance without a struggle! And if the giraffe does so, it is probably dying or diseased.

      The only other time you will find Socialism at work in Nature is when the lion stumbles onto a dead animal that died for another reason other than the hunt. It’s decaying meat won’t be a very tasty meal. There must always be the struggle.

      Socialism must take on the idea of money as it’s “whore,” or the citizenry will recognize that real slavery has now become their lot in life, with only blisters on their hands to show for their laboring all day to keep their leader’s happy and well-fed.

      Capitalism makes the unencumbered-by-government entrepreneur self-reliant, and sometimes rich for exploiting his own ideas and labor.

      Socialism only does this for the leaders of the state….with the exception of the self-reliant part, as it offers none. All the Socialist leaders needs are provided by their usurping of energy from the peons supporting their government lifestyles.

      In Capitalism, the people are the government…in Socialism, the leaders of the country are the government. Capitalism also generates a winning attitude, while Socialism can only generate more and more victims.

      Capitalism, a Socialist will say, also creates slaves among the population. What they won’t talk about is the amount of pure freedom that true Capitalism generates to those hard-working entrepreneurs in the process of capital creation.

      IOW, Capitalism generates creators who by personal choice, not by edict, become “slaves” to their product/service.

      Perfect Capitalism’s “carrot-on-a-string” is the gift of self-sufficiency for the hard-working, diligent individual.

      Perfect Socialism’s “carrot-on-a-string” is only meant for those in power in the government. The “peasants” only get to hold the string.

      • liz

        Yes socialism IS found in nature – it’s called the PARASITE!!

        • REALBEING

          By golly, you’re right! And to think that I almost forgot about the lowly parasite!

      • donl

        There is but the slightest hope that Obama has taken too big a slice of the salami…it’s been noticed and enough are awake now. (1957 Hungarian communist notion of the salami tactic: tiny slices are never noticed until it’s too late – the salami is gone.)

        I keep promoting the alternative 5th amendment idea of Constitutional amendment by states…not the congress. Term limits and repeal 17 as a beginning: de-career & un-party the government. Voting is useless…as long as the parasites (thanks Liz) remain entrenched in DC, nothing will alter the trajectory…merely slow acceleration to oblivion.

    • Jillian Becker

      Thanks for this interesting and informative comment, donl. We agree with almost all you say.

      Just one caveat. We are FOR the nation state.

  • liz

    Interesting how the problems we are so overwhelmed with now, such as the forced redistribution of wealth through taxation, were already raising their ugly heads during the lifetimes of our founding fathers.
    And though Williams doesn’t specifically admit it, he does indirectly include the church in the fault for that. The seeds for the whole notion of socialism are found in the New Testament (as you’ve well documented here), paving the way nicely for its adaptation by government as a policy.

    • REALBEING

      Apparently, the idea of the separation of church and state isn’t
      enforced in certain forbidden areas. You know the ones I’m talking
      about, those where the collection of the citizen’s finances for the support of the welfare state are involved.

      The Christian tenet of altruism holds the smallest minority back more than ever. The smallest minority is always the individual.

      Its interesting how a tiny lack of responsibility at the beginning can grow into such a monster…the likes of what we are now faced with.