E-mail:

Password:

Scarlet Letter

Other web sites/blogs

Archive

Atheist Blogroll

Socialists Believe the Absolute Worst of Humanity

Socialists Believe the Absolute Worst of Humanity

Oct 29, 2008 at 06:25pm

You heard me. Socialists, not laissez-faire capitalists, are the cynics. Socialists are the ones that think the absolute worst of humanity.

Why? First lets start with what exactly "socialism" is. It is an economic system with which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively- by a Government. The goal of socialism is to obtain equal distribution of wealth. This implies the abolition of a class hierarchy, and the abolition of the individual.

When I say that most Americans are in fact "socialists", I do not mean that they are conspiring to overthrow class hierarchy, and actively seek to abolish the concept of self. When I say that most Americans, including contemporary Republicans, are socialists, I mean to say that they wholeheartedly support the equal redistribution of wealth. Abolishing class hierarchy and the individual is simply a logical progression from this.

Socialism does not mean violence. It does not mean dictatorship. It quite simply is adequately explained by "equal distribution of wealth." Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are all socialists movements- but to be a socialist does not imply you are a marxist, communist, nazi, or fascist.

The easiest way to prove that most Americans are in fact socialists is to cite one example that is unequivocally socialist: welfare. Most Americans today would be hard-pressed to say that they would want to completely ban welfare, and thus, this is why they are socialist. Welfare, in its most reduced definition, is when the Government uses taxpayer money to give to people with little money. This is redistribution of wealth- or in other words, forced charity. You, as an American citizen, have no choice but to give money to the impoverished.

Perhaps you think this is a good thing- and that would make you a socialist.

At first, this sounds a bit cold. But lets think about it in another way that brings the issue closer to home. Lets imagine that I break into your home with a loaded pistol. I point it to your head and demand $1000. I tell you that I will use this $1000 to feed hungry children, but if you do not give me the $1000, you will cease to exist.

Think this is over the top? It isn't. Your taxes go to the Government, and the Government pays people who are on welfare. If you do not pay your taxes, you are thrown in jail. In other words: you cease to exist. You have no choice.

Maybe you are thinking it should be mandatory to help your fellow human. If you are, then I would say that this is what makes you a cynic: you could not have any lower opinion of humanity than this. Believing that people can only be helped through the forced charity of others, that is, people must be forced to help others at gunpoint, is the single worst thing that could be said about humanity. Why? Because as a consequence of this belief, it would also be true that if people weren't forced to help others, than people who need help would not get it.

Oddly enough, the people who believe that people will help others on their own free will are the ones cast as "selfish," while people who believe that we must be forced to help others are the ones who are deemed "compassionate."

Capitalism, it seems, has received a bad reputation over the years. It's individualist nature has led people to brand it as "selfish"- but yet, the whole point of Capitalism is that through individualism, society as a whole, and people in general, will benefit the most than under any other economic system. Don't forget one of the core teachings of capitalism: businesses exist to provide the consumer with what they want.

There is nothing more degrading than believing we must be forced to help others. There no worse opinion of humankind than the one that socialism implies.

Comments (11) | Post Comment

durrhurr

Oct 30, 2008 at 12:23am

Could you focus a bit more on what you dislike about forced charity and a low opinion of humanity, rather than grouping things you don't like together then labelling everything guilty by association

nothingchimp

Oct 30, 2008 at 12:59am

I would say that in an idealistic version of the world the coerced reallocation of resources would not be necessary, but only because all the other corrupt factors of life (unequal bargaining power, duress, fraud) destroy any chance of an equitable distribution of resources in demand to merit. As long as anyone has the legal right to force charity, or any other law for that matter, it is a necessary bandage to society's wounds. So, yes, in the short-term, the worst of ourselves is mitigated by the best of our intentions.

Andrew

Oct 30, 2008 at 01:04am

I indicated a clear progression from one being a socialist to the implication of having one of the lowest expressable opinions of humanity.

What do I dislike about forced charity?

Because the way in which socialists want us to help our fellow humans is entirely corrupt. By socialism, we garner charity through a sense of entitlement, rather than the genuine feeling of reception. By socialism, we must give charity at gunpoint, rather than the genuine feeling of giving.

My blog post directly concerns the popular trend that socialists are considered "compassionate" and laissez-faire capitalists are considered "selfish"... A low opinion of humanity and forced charity are antithesis to compassion. That is my point.

durrhurr

Oct 30, 2008 at 02:43am

What's the difference between "corrupt helping" and non-corrupt helping?

Assuming less charity without it being forced, is this "corrupt helping" worse than not helping at all?

Coralie

Oct 30, 2008 at 07:16am

I've never understood why socialists feel that only government--an institution which has proven itself to be corrupt time and time again--can take care of the needy better than charities which are more often than not run by people who actually care about the needy. Americans give more to VOLUNTARY charities per capita than Europeans. I don't think it's any coincidence that Europeans tend to live in heavily socialized nation and no longer believe that they bear any personal responsibility to their fellow man. They've been socialist long enough that they now believe the government is responsible for helping others and that individuals can live guilt free while others are starving. Luckily most Americans still don't feel that way, although the tide is clearly changing.

durrhurr

Oct 30, 2008 at 07:12pm

Why can't they live guilt free? They voluntarily continue to live in their country and pay its taxes, resulting in them giving enough to charity to justify feeling guilt-free. If a European automatically gives two units "involuntarily" then a single unit voluntarily, while the American gives two voluntary units, the European deserves to be guilt-free in equal or greater amounts than the American.

Does the charity not count if it doesn't come from a princess with a pure heart?

Jason

Oct 31, 2008 at 04:05pm

You might want to use the word collectivist instead of socialist in pieces like this. A collectivist would include mercantilists, corporatists, theocrats, fascists, socialists, communists, or any other group that wants to take from one group at the point of a gun and give to another. You could argue that minarchists also belong in this grouping but it would depend on how the minarchist would go about funding "government." Socialism has a certain set of beliefs that are typically associated with it and you are trying to redefine socialism for no reason when another word that actually works better fits your usage.

Also durrhurr your example would be more accurate by saying Europeans give two by force and one by charity while Americans give one by force and two by charity. Also don't forget that capitalism greatly reduces poverty while third-way European socialism causes society to essentially stagnant in poverty levels or increase in poverty due to immigration depending on how free their markets are.

Jason

Oct 31, 2008 at 04:08pm

Also, I'm not really sure where else to post this but you might want to check out Free Talk Live which is a libertarian radio show that is hosted by an atheist.

There website is located here: www.freetalklive.com

durrhurr

Oct 31, 2008 at 08:43pm

The whole point of Obama's "socialism" is that there would be additional total charity if it were forced, so please show the studies you're leaning on.

David Kendal

May 13, 2009 at 04:00pm

You're confusing "socialism" with "communism." Socialism is where the government controls the major industries. There is still lots of private-sector employment. The difference most goods sold in private shops will contain some materials made by publicly-owned corporations, and will likely have been transported by a government-owned courier.

This doesn't mean the government make huge amounts of money from this; often, the companies will have a huge operating loss. The purpose of socialism therefore is to make goods cheaper.

Communism is where the government controls every economic change. It will own anything produced of any value. The shops will be run by the government, at least indirectly.

Andrew

May 13, 2009 at 04:58pm

Communism is a global movement with its endgame being a classless and stateless society where everything is collectively owned.

You say: "Socialism is where the government controls the major industries."

Precisely. Just what do you think taxes, subsidies, and regulation are? It's controlling the major industries.

There is a fine line between having a forced monopoly (like on currency or the law) and controlling industry through other means.

Something ceases to be privately owned when someone else forcefully dictates a share in that ownership. Taxes, subsidies, and regulation are examples of this force.

 

Post Comment

Post Comment

Why not register?