Presiding over the Senate

Sometimes the Vice President is not available to preside over the Senate. Can the Senate elect on of its own members to be acting president? [Read more]

Time for Regulation

How much time passed between the writing of the Constitution and the regulation of railroads – 72 years, 90 years, or 100 years? [Read more]

Vacant Presidents Office

How many times has the office of the President become prematurely vacant – five, nine, or fifteen? [Read more]

State Fugitives

A fugitive from Ohio is arrested in Illinois, and the governor of Illinois is asked to return the prisoner to Ohio. Is the Illinois governor required to return the prisoner, or can he use his own discretion? [Read more]

Revolutionary Loss of Citizenship

Can an American lose his our her citizenship by attempting the violent or forcible overthrow of the United States government? [Read more]

Congressional Oversight

Can Congress exclude certain cases from being appealed to the Supreme Court? [Read more]

New Ambassador

When a new ambassador arrives in the United States, does he report to Congress or the President? [Read more]

What is Socialism? – 8-25-2009

With all the different policies that have been proposed in Washington D.C. over the last few months, a great deal of almost zealous fervor has erupted in the populous. All to frequent is the call that these “Socialist” measures must be stopped. Many critics have derided their excitement as uneducated banter, stating that this is not socialism at all, but only a little additional step of control or regulation of the free market. Further stating that actual Socialism requires state ownership of the means of production.

Would it be to crazy for either side to find out that….their both correct in degree. Socialism takes on many faces in the world. There have been many advocates of different forms of socialism, from early 1800 social cooperatives, to full on communism. These forms varied in degree with the early “experiments” beginning as a perceived organic collective, to the complete and total control of the economy through central planning.

Later the implementing the ideas of “Social Democrats” sought to heal the apparent problems in a Market Economy (Capitalist) through the nationalization of key industries providing for the control over the market for the good of the people, while still allowing a semblance of the previous market economy to continue to operate.

it is this form of Democratic Socialism that is what the so called kook is screaming about, and what the critic downplays. They both have ground to stand on and both see each other as being the one that is wrong. But it is history that undermines each of their arguments.

The kook calls out the current socialist agenda and is marginalized in his arguments by his acceptance of past social/progressive agendas like Social Security, Medicaid, Farm Subsidies, Child Tax Credits, (insert your favorite government subsidy here), etc. Their unwillingness to admit to their dependance on those currently existing social programs, and only calling out the new addition to the menagerie weakens their moral standing. So more than being a call against socialism it is a call against changing the status quo.

The critic casts doubt on the kooks cause, vilifying them at every turn. While they will marginalize their own viewpoint by heralding new regulations and restraints in the market. With these new restraints in place they then suffer from the unintended consequences of the “needed” market reforms and then complain about the increased cost of their favorite widget. They then go off blaming this obvious injustice on the greedy underhanded Capitalist that must have raised prices to line his own pockets. Rather than realizing that the heralded regulation required additional resources of the Capitalist to produce their widgets, so the Capitalist was “forced” to pass those added capital expenses along to the consumer (AKA the critic).

In order for truth to be found on the issue of Socialism and its effects, one must push past the flawed opinions of both sides, Ignore the issue and seek to understand the underlying principle.

Our nation was founded on the principle that “All” were given the “Unalienable” right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (This last right also being deemed to be Property). These were given to us by a source that was greater than our government, that our very existence verified the existence and necessity of these rights. Those rights created the foundation upon which all future legislation was to be judged. How does socialism stand up to the test?

In 1989, at Stockholm, the 18th Congress of the Socialist International adopted a Declaration of Principles, saying that

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice, and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents, and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.

Truly high ideals, who wouldn’t want to help everyone have a meaningful life,  and a guarantee of human and civil rights. Let’s look at the opinions of a philosopher who lived during the French Revolution, and argued against the Socialistic movement of the time.

Frederic Bastiat stated in “The Law”:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

He understood and was able to succinctly point out the major flaw in the theory of socialism. That is that to violate the founding principles of Life Liberty and Property for any reason however noble, creates injustice and inequity in the society that is in the process of being socially herded at the whims of the legislators. The very act of attempting to attain those high ideals that Democratic Socialists claim to espouse, will rob it from the grasp of those whom had already attained those ideals through their own labor and industry.

To illustrate this, let’s look at an example. Let’s say that you notice that you have two neighbors that have a noticeable difference, Neighbor “A” has two nice cars, and Neighbor “B” has none. This may seem like an obvious inequity in your neighborhood. So being the egalitarian that you are, you walk over and take one of Neighbor “A”’s cars and give it to Neighbor “B”. We all should easily be able to see that no matter what the motives, You would be arrested and tried for Auto Theft. No matter how much you wanted to help Neighbor “B”, Taking the car from Neighbor “A” will always be a violation of their property rights. If the government enacts legislation requiring that everyone only be allowed to have one car, and giving the excess cars to those individuals who do not own one. The same principle has been violated, that of Neighbor “A”’s property.

This example may seem a little far fetched you say, I would never take my neighbors car and give it to my other neighbor. Maybe not, but you would be willing to take money from your neighbor in order to receive your favorite subsidy. It some how seems to make it easier for individuals to swallow, if they are not directly involved in the plunder, but just get to be the recipients of it.

That is the point on which this whole debate revolves. Taking money from anyone to give to someone else, without their permission or direction, whether through your hands or the hands of the government is and always will be PLUNDER. That is why socialism in all its forms will never be successful and accomplish their aims, because it violates the core unalienable rights of its subjects. It can never create justice for all, by implementing injustice for all. When we can all understand the core of this then we can really begin to remove our own socialist blinders, then we can start to see some real effective changes in the United States.

Look in your own life and realize where you have been unjustly benefiting from others labor, and make the changes that are necessary in your own life.

Please join us for the Call for Freedom each week Click Here for this week’s details.

Listen to all of our Call For Freedom Recordings, Click Here to view our archives.

The President Elect

Does the Constitution require that the President be chosen from among the male citizens of the United States? [Read more]

Martin Van Buren

How many times did Martin Van Buren run for President of the United States? [Read more]

Next Page »