Socialism is evil

[Jroc]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. 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.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

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) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

 

[uscitizen]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

 

[boedicca]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

Perhaps if parents were fully responsible, they would ensure their children learned the proper use of an apostrophe.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

Perhaps if parents were fully responsible, they would ensure their children learned the proper use of an apostrophe.

Grammar Nazi alert!

 

[BlindBoo]

While I can't agree that it is evil, at least the author doesn't single out one of the parties or the other as being the evil socialist redistributing monster.

 

[G.T.]

MLK Jr. was a Socialist.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. 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.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

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) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

Socialism is evil

Hear ye', hear ye' .. it has been so declared by black neo-confederate Walter Williams that anything designated as "public" is evil. That all the examples of socialism in America .. such as police departments, libraries, and any service that benefits actual PEOPLE, not property, is evil.

Thank you Walter (Johnny Reb) Williams.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. 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.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

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) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

"We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus. "

yes, slavery comes to mind
​

The biggest problem with socialism is the means not necessary the goals or ends.
If ones describes the "ends" as everyone having what they need to survive. All politicians try to claim that is what they are doing for the masses.

There are many in the US who claim to be socialists or claim to want the same ends with little understanding or care of the means on how to achieve those goals. They just know we must achieve those goals, at any cost. Which is where the problems come in....

 

[Neotrotsky]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. 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.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

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) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

Socialism is evil

Hear ye', hear ye' .. it has been so declared by black neo-confederate Walter Williams that anything designated as "public" is evil. That all the examples of socialism in America .. such as police departments, libraries, and any service that benefits actual PEOPLE, not property, is evil.

Thank you Walter (Johnny Reb) Williams.

Help me, if you could please

What is that term that the Left uses to describe a black person who does not vote for Democrats?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

Not at all,

one could achieve that same goal with school vouchers for everyone

 

[editec]

The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights.

Finally! Somebody actually got it RIGHT!

Socialism can be evil, without doubt. Hell folks, any social system can be evil, if evil people run it.

That's so freakin' obvious that I am mystified as to why it must be pointed out.

Mostly though, my complaint about socialism is that it isn't a very efficient system for creating wealth.

Capitalism's primary flaw, as I see it is just the opposite.

It is a tremendous system for creating wealth. Capitalism just isn't all that good at distributing that wealth to the people who actually created it.

That's why having good government that understands that it needs to apply a gentle but firm hand at regulation of capitalism is needed.

Sans some regulation capitalism isn't even possible.

Of course, sans regulation no civil society, regardless of its economic system, is possible.


Government is a Goldilocks problems.

Too much and it's no good.

Too little and it's no good.

Finding just the right balance between the needs of the society to protect itself versus the needs of the indivuiduals to be protected from both government and other individuals is DAMNED HARD.

And worse, the balance is always changing because society itself is ever changing.

That's why having a society where each citizen has a fair share of input is vital to the long term health of that society.

And incidently, that is why our democratic Republic nation is going down the shitter, too.

Because that balance of electorate power is off kilter and getting further off kilter every year that I've been paying attention.

Capitalists (some of them...the insiders mostly) are eating away at the foundations of this formerly democratic republic.

And there is really no socialist solution to that problem, either.

In fact moving further toward the socialist (government) solutions merely further empowers the scoundrels that HATE this nation and the people in it.

The only solution is to see to it that when it comes to elections, each citizen has roughtly the same input into the process.

And THAT is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy out of kilter.

 

[sangha]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. 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.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

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) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

Socialism is evil

Hear ye', hear ye' .. it has been so declared by black neo-confederate Walter Williams that anything designated as "public" is evil. That all the examples of socialism in America .. such as police departments, libraries, and any service that benefits actual PEOPLE, not property, is evil.

Thank you Walter (Johnny Reb) Williams.

Help me, if you could please

What is that term that the Left uses to describe a black person who does not vote for Democrats?

Republican

 

[MajinLink]

There's different types of Socialism. Marxism is the most often misused and even that has many different variations. The Soviet Union started out as the main example and Vietnam, China, Laos, N. Korea, and Cuba copied a lot of it but practically all of them have made their own changes and reforms to the Marxist system with some of them actually have free markets which makes them really just Fascist Capitalists.

Another example of real life examples of Socialism is the Democratic Socialists. Most of Europe has a democratic socialist party though most of them are just minor parties with little seats in their governments. UK's labour party pre-tony blair is another example of democratic socialists. Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party and is highly rated in opinion polls.

The other type is Social Democracy, which granted changed shaped and purpose over time but has modernly become really the Capitalist Welfare state. Most of the best countries in Europe have had huge social democratic influence and programs.


The thing about Capitalism is that it really could be good if people weren't evil. The same could be said about Socialism by Capitalists, as greed and power can corrupt any system. Capitalism has now become a game of dog eat dog, and usually there's one giant dog who will eat the tiny puppies in our world. Without Socialist influence, if someone can't pay rent their forced out into the streets, if they can't pay for food they go hungry, if they get sick they won't get treated, and if their children grow up they wont' get a proper education.

Even Republican's faith in Jesus should show them that even he didn't believe anything good about rich people. If unregulated they will cut hard working people's pay, hike prices, give no benefits, makes hours longer, make work even harder, make products that do not work or are harmful, and do everything in their power to keep money out of the poor's hand and keep the rest for themselves. Trickle down economics is just a rich man grabbing a huge pile of money and a few people managed to collect a few coins and bills that managed to drop out of his hands while running off with it.


Bill Gates and Warren Buffet already said that it is okay to tax the rich. It's merely taking away money that goes for the greater good, and for the people who have too little. If giving everyone a proper education, healthcare, housing, food, and anything else they can't afford under their Capitalistic machine is evil then there is no word to describe how malevolent Capitalism is.

 

[sangha]

The US is a socialist nation

We have a socialist retirement system (Social Security), health care (Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamcare), military, fire depts, police dept, socialized supply of food, water, and electricity, socialized communications systems (telephone, cable, tv, internet), weather service, socialist transportation systems (roads and highways, Amtrack, airports and air traffic controllers) and on and on

We also have a solialist tax system (ie a progressive income tax)

Wingnuts hate the US so much they call it "evil"

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. 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.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

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) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

Socialism is evil

Hear ye', hear ye' .. it has been so declared by black neo-confederate Walter Williams that anything designated as "public" is evil. That all the examples of socialism in America .. such as police departments, libraries, and any service that benefits actual PEOPLE, not property, is evil.

Thank you Walter (Johnny Reb) Williams.

Help me, if you could please

What is that term that the Left uses to describe a black person who does not vote for Democrats?

We call them republicans.

What do you call them?

OR, they could belong to the largest group of Americans of voting age .. those that don't vote at all.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

Not at all,

one could achieve that same goal with school vouchers for everyone

which is still socialism.
Most parents school taxes paid do not come near to the actual const of educating their child. If they did people without children would not have to pay any school tax.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

Not at all,

one could achieve that same goal with school vouchers for everyone

which is still socialism.
Most parents school taxes paid do not come near to the actual const of educating their child. If they did people without children would not have to pay any school tax.

Not at all, it is no more "socialist" than say the military.
The free market allows for things public goods and natural monopolies.
It is nothing more than creating access to a "public good"

Granted, one could argue that it is statist but socialist, no.

It is smarter move and more market orientated than say creating a huge Federal Dep't that spends a lot of money and has little to show for it

sort of like we have now

 

[Neotrotsky]

Hear ye', hear ye' .. it has been so declared by black neo-confederate Walter Williams that anything designated as "public" is evil. That all the examples of socialism in America .. such as police departments, libraries, and any service that benefits actual PEOPLE, not property, is evil.

Thank you Walter (Johnny Reb) Williams.

Help me, if you could please

What is that term that the Left uses to describe a black person who does not vote for Democrats?

Republican

So all Republicans are black

Did you know MLK was a Republican?

 

[sangha]

Not at all,

one could achieve that same goal with school vouchers for everyone

which is still socialism.
Most parents school taxes paid do not come near to the actual const of educating their child. If they did people without children would not have to pay any school tax.

Not at all, it is no more "socialist" than say the military.
The free market allows for things public goods and natural monopolies.
It is nothing more than creating access to a "public good"

Granted, one could argue that it is statist but socialist, no.

It is smarter move and more market orientated than say creating a huge Federal Dep't that spends a lot of money and has little to show for it

sort of like we have now

umm, the military is 100% socialist.

So are public schools. 100% socialist

It's a socialist nation. The rightwingers lost. Get over it!

 

[sangha]

Help me, if you could please

What is that term that the Left uses to describe a black person who does not vote for Democrats?

Republican

So all Republicans are black

Did you know MLK was a Republican?

Yes, all republicans are black

And all cats are tigers