Thursday, July 16, 2009
I found this handwritten post in a notebook today. Its date of origin is sometime in November of 2007.
What could possibly be wrong with socialism? After all, its purpose is ostensibly to bring comfort to the poor and downtrodden people of the world, placing all people at the same level of economic and social status. Its purpose is to eliminate social and economic class by equalizing the social and economic outcomes for all. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Of course, the answer is simple. Socialism offers no reward for the hard work it takes to discover the best way to do something. There is no economic or social reward for success at anything other than mediocrity. If socialism is such a wonderful idea, so much better than American freedom and capitalism, then where is the great socialist success story in the world, where everyone is rich, and prosperity greater than any capitalist's dream is the order of the day?
Socialism discourages hard work and competition. After all, if Jerry makes as much money or more on the dole than Tommy, even though Tommy works sixty hours a week, then why should either of them work? In this way, socialism ultimately breeds laziness and the mentality that everything should be provided for you instead of you having to make the right choices and earn what you have.
Over the last one hundred or so years, socialists in America have convinced all but the most conservative Americans (who used to cherish their freedom) that it's quite all right for other people to be forced to pay for their halthcare (MediScare), their retirement (Socialist Security), their kids' education (NCLB), their medicine, their food, their housing, their disaster recovery, and a plethora of other things, all in the name of good intentions.
It's become so convoluted that now we don't even hear debate about whether or not there should be socialism in America, but rather how much. Do we really want to live like Cubans, Chinese, or Ethiopians, and ultimately see our economy collapse under socialism like the Soviet Union? Why do we keep putting more eggs in this basket that was discarded in America so appropriately nearly four centuries ago?
Of course, the answer is simple. In order to have socialism on any scale grander than a household or two, big government has to get involved. Complain all you want about big business, but the best of big government is far more dangerous than the worst of big business. Government by its very nature is evil, and this has been known since before our Republic was established. Why would anyone consider placing the state of his very health into the hands of such an evil entity?
For average people, victims of the very education system that socialism has given us, there is an excuse - they just don't know. Seriously. Ask them where the US Constitution authorizes this course of action, and if they tell you anything even remotely resembling intelligence, they'll quote you the General Welfare clause from Article I, section 8, even though the public debate that took place a the time the Constitution was written is both available and easily accessible. The result of the debate is also clear: The founders did not intend the General Welfare Clause to indicate that the US government would have the authority to implement something like socialism just because they thought it to somehow "promote the general welfare" of the people (still no word on how taking money from people against their will and giving it to people/entities they themselves would never consider giving it to does anything to promote their welfare).
Furthermore, if the Founders of this great nation saw any merit to socialism, they would surely have made provisions for it in the Constitution. Why didn't they? Well that answer is simple too: they saw it for the bullshit that it is. Look, these guys had carte blanche to set up whatever government they wanted, and all they gave it the authority to do was to secure the people's individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The Bill of Rights was drafted later to set even stricter boundaries that the government couldn't cross. Were they alive today, they'd certainly be disappointed.
Of course, while Joe Public, with his public school education and possibly his liberal college background, simply doesn't know what the Constitution says, those holding public office do know, and know quite well. For them, socialism is a means of acquiring and keeping power for themselves and control over people. Do you really believe Hitlery means well with her Nationalist Socialist healthcare plan when the same has failed so dismally in Europe, Canada, and worst of all, Cuba? What does she really want you to believe she brings to the table that would make Hitlerycare so much better than other socialist attempts at the same thing? Oh, and what will become of it once there's no more Hitlery around, even if it is successful? All it should take for socialism to succeed, the socialists tell us, is the right leaders. I actually had one of them tell me that. What a load of crap.
Why should we work to eliminate a wealthy class of Americans when capitalism (with all its faults) affords plenty of opportunity to not only have a healthy group of wealthy Americans, but also to expand that group through upward mobility? The socialists don't want you to answer that question, because there's no room for it in their worldview. To them, you are born at some level, and that's where you stay. For them, in order for one person to be wealthy, he must somehow oppress a poor person somewhere, or so they'd have you believe. Of course, punishing people for being wealthy through the tax code, as American socialists do, does more to oppress the poor than anything those wealthy people do on their own. It forces them to hold on to their money instead of spending it in a fashion that will help those poor people, particularly those not sucking off the socialists' teat. Even for those on the dole, there isn't much left after the socialists pay themselves. After all, nothing is free. Not even socialism.
And what of the other problems that socialists have tried to use their system to solve? Poverty isn't any better, schools are worse, and elderly people now depend on what we were told was meant to be a mere supplement. What is the socialists' solution to the problems their socialism has created and/or exacerbated? MORE SOCIALISM. Yeah, that'll help ... not.
The real solution is to dismantle socialism completely. Phase it out. It outlived its usefulness the day it was foisted upon us. Do away with that which should never have been started. America - indeed, the world - will be a better place for it.
... And the Founders would be proud.