The Essence Of Socialism, Coming soon to a government near you

According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.



Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion - the IRS) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people - various federal programs). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Those candidates that appear less Socialist will receive my vote. Those that appear more like Thieves will not receive my vote. Tax cuts get my attention. More government spending gets my anger.

Your mileage may vary.

This is the essence of why neither party truly represents the interests of the vast majority of people, and why some think all democracies (even those that take the form of a republic) are ultimately doomed to fail.

Maybe we should go back to a Monarchy. Let's make Annabelle Queen! Hail Queen Annabelle!

We laugh, but could it be any worse?

She'd probably make me a peasant, and scream, "Off with his head!" That would be a bummer.

We laugh, but could it be any worse?

She'd probably make me a peasant, and scream, "Off with his head!" That would be a bummer.

NAH! She would make you an assistant slave.

So, Shamalama, what do you think the role of government should be. And, without taxes, how are we to fund it?

So, Shamalama, what do you think the role of government should be? And, without taxes, how are we to fund it?

There's an echo in here.

The federal government should keep bad guys from doing bad things to me. Period. It should protect my life and my property. It's all right there in the Constiturion - nothing not clearly specified in the Constitution is reserved for the individual and the states.

I understand that taxes are needed to fund the federal government. But I don't like my income going to subsidize some loony "artist" who shows off a pile of horse dung at a swanky museum and calls it art.

I don't like my income going to subsidize some ghetto mom having her 4th abortion.

I don't like my income going to subsidize a mid-west sheep farmer to sit on his butt while wool prices go up.

I don't like my income going to subsidize food in Africa when American children are hungry.

I don't like my income going to subsidize schools that simply increase the adminstrative staff while showing no improvements in quality measurable education.

I could go on, but the caffeine is wearing off.

Maybe you need MORE caffeine rather than less?