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 (20) | Post Comment

Conservatives Are Not Really Conservatives

Oct 27, 2008 at 12:36am

(This is in reference to the Ballot Initiatives for the State of Massachusetts.)

How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that infringe on personal liberties?

How can you want to take power away from the Government, then give it right back to them by consenting to laws that protect animals? The Constitution says nothing about making laws to protect animals.

If we are against using and torturing dogs for entertainment, must we also be against hunting for sport?

Lets start with our premise: Voting Yes on Question 1. (If you're voting No, then you are not a conservative, and support redistribution of wealth and big government spending.)

So there are a few reasons why you might be voting Yes on Question 1:

1) You are against all income tax on principle (or all direct or all forced taxes).

2) You believe that private companies can operate more cheaply and more efficiently than government.

3) You believe that government spending should not be so high.

These are wholly conservative views, as they represent the Constitutional principles of Government: that it be small and "out of the way". Quite simply, that Government exists to protect the people from dangers foreign and domestic- not to "take care" of the people.

Following this line of logic, conservatism favors the status quo- that is, little change. In other words, breaking it down to its very core, conservatives should be interpreting the Constitution as a dead document- one that does not change, and a document that means exactly what it says it means at the time of writing.

Continuing this line of logic, it is easy to see what the Constitution is: a document, agreed to by the people, that creates, establishes, and restricts government. Contrary to what most people think, the Constitution doesn't grant us any rights. No, not at all. The Constitution assumes we have rights, because we are human. It then goes on to say how the Government cannot interfere with those assumed rights. The Constitution never grants authority for Government to regulate what I may or may not put in my body on my own free will. Thus any laws that try to establish such a law are unconstitutional. Being a conservative means sticking with the status quo, and for the history of the United States, all the way up till the 1930s, drugs were perfectly legal. Marijuana (or hemp) was even a major cash crop, and was once used as a form of currency!

A similar line of reasoning exists for Question 3. Where does the Constitution grant Government authority to regulate how its citizens treat animals? Nevertheless, if you feel your sense of higher morality kicking in overdrive for animals, then you must relinquish the next point: hunting for sport. You cannot possibly vote Yes on Question 3 while still supporting hunting for sport. Both torture and kill animals for entertainment. If you dissent from hunting for sport, then I would say you are not a conservative: hunting has been a human tradition throughout all of our history. It's one of the more status quo things that makes up being a conservative.

Being a "conservative" these days (ie: the self-proclaimed Fox News Republicans) amounts to being a neo-conservative. Similarly, being a "liberal" these days amounts to being a "socialist". I always like to compare the two this way: liberals and conservatives today both like Big Government- the only difference is that one has twisted social policies.

Lets try an applied example, shall we? A true conservative wants to make immigration laws more relaxed. Yet, all we see from today's conservatives is something about beefing up border security and deportation. We must look at why we have an illegal immigration problem: that is, what specifically attracts people by the droves to cross our borders illegally? Not only are we offering them jobs (illegally), but we have something far better: you don't have to work, and you'll be paid! This means that the elimination of the welfare state is required to curb our illegal immigration problem.

After that, more immigrants will be welcome as they will need to work. More workers means more labor, which increases production and thus helps make our economy grow.

The problem never was illegal immigration. It never will be. It will always be the welfare state and the incentives we provide. Stomping around and complaining about illegal immigrants sucking the system dry and how we should deport them is completely futile and naive. It doesn't address the problem at all. These people are not conservatives.

Not to mention the litany of other anti-conservative things: a privately controlled monetary system (aka The Federal Reserve- the Constitution never granted Congress the authority to delegate currency management to a collection of private banks); medicare (more redistribution of wealth); unapportioned taxes (which is the current state of the Federal Income Tax); social security (why should I be forced by the government to delegate X amount of dollars to my retirement? where is my liberty to design my own retirement fund?); compulsory education (where is my right to educate myself? or where is my right to educate my children in my own way?).

Being a conservative isn't limited to thumping on about overturning Roe v. Wade, lowering taxes, and retaining the right to bear arms. There's a lot more to it than that, and what's even better, we have a document written a while ago that tells us exactly how to be a conservative!

I'll say it once more: Democrats and Republicans only differ on social policy now. Both are for big government, and neither are for the free market.

Comments (1) | Post Comment