Socialism – The Politics of Egoism
I’ve been thinking lately how much those who support socialistic ideals are really focused on self. Egoism is the philosophy that all decisions are motivated by self interest; the adjective- egotist – describes a person with excessive concern for their own self interest.
I contend that socialism is political egoism, and that those who promote socialism are egotists. This doesn’t mean they think they are better than anyone else, but that they are consumed with their own state in life, and all their decisions are made to enhance their personal state.
To put this in everyday terms; socialism is concerned with focusing solely on the personal interests of people, and those who seek it are altogether concerned with their own personal interests. While this may sound like a reasonable approach since all of us are concerned with our own state in life, it really means that socialists don’t care much about anything outside themselves; they don’t care if the country goes broke so long as they, themselves are not negatively impacted.
My first offer of proof that our country is headed for socialism is the 535 members of the U.S. House or Representatives and the U.S. Senate. They vote on what their own salaries are to be, they vote for themselves to have retirement benefits unavailable to anyone in the private sector, they have access to health insurance unavailable to anyone in the private sector, when they want more staff, they give themselves more of your money, when they want to take a trip, they take it and you pick up the tab; they permit themselves to propose and vote on legislation that will increase their own personal wealth, and are not required to put their assets in a blind trust. They do not have to concern themselves with the health of the country as a whole; they do not have to worry about the cost of operating a business; they can get sweetheart deals for personal benefit like those Friends of Angelo mortgages we heard about; they create the rules regarding ethics, and then get to oversee or ignore their application. It isn’t about the health of the country; it’s about personal re-election or their personal wealth most of the time.
President Obama promotes the idea of nationalizing healthcare (make no mistake, that’s exactly what he wants) but when asked whether or not he would be satisfied with it for his own daughters, he said he wants the best care in the world for them. Why should he worry about affirmative action doctors, or who graduated in the bottom of their class? He is wealthy enough to get his family the care he wants. The rules don’t apply to elites – the rules are for everybody else.
What is socialism, and is Mr. Obama a socialist?
Webster’s online dictionary defines socialism as “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
I offer proof that the Obama administration is committed to a socialistic society in America ; and proof he understands that the Constitution stands in his way and will have to be changed or ignored if he is to create his socialistic utopia.
Mr. Obama thinks it’s a good thing to “spread the wealth around.” In order to do that, he first has to extract wealth from people who earn it. We call this socialism because it is the “administration of the…distribution of goods.” (We will deal with nationalizing private companies like GM and Chrysler; controlling healthcare, and banking institutions elsewhere.)
Then in the second video, Mr. Obama connects what he called “economic justice in this society” to the civil rights movement. This means that Obama sees redistribution of your wealth to other people who didn’t earn it as their civil right! Mr. Obama has had this as a commitment over many years, and can be expected to use all the powers he has as President to carry it out as a “civil right.”
He also lamented that the Warren Court didn’t “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution…” What he is saying here is that for “civil rights” to be fully extended to all, the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution will have to be betrayed; violated, because the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” and the Warren Court never got into what the “federal government and the state governments must do on your behalf.” Only then, he asserts, will civil rights movement reach completion. (In another Post I will deal with the concept of what the “federal government and the state governments must do on your behalf.”)
The Constitution is a document that lists and states specifically what the federal government can do, and forbids it from doing anything else as declared in the 9th and 10th Amendments; all other powers belong to the states or to the people themselves. Mr. Obama wants the federal government to redistribute the wealth of the nation by taking it away from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not.
In addition, the Constitution provides “negative liberties” in the form of things the federal government cannot do like control your speech, what you publish, and your practice of religion; cannot search your home, papers or effects without probable cause, and so on. These are “negative rights,” or “negative liberties” as he called them.
In answer to a question on the radio interview in 2001, Mr. Obama asserts that the courts will probably not be able to accomplish this economic redistribution so it will be left to the Congress. He implies the Congress must illegally change the Constitution through legislation; but the Constitution forbids that approach, permitting Constitutional change by the amendment process only. (Article 5.)
So we know for a fact that Mr. Obama is committed to organizing America as a socialist state; he has outlined what it must include and how he plans to do it. He won’t admit it of course because it would reveal what his plan really is, and he doesn’t want people to know because a vast majority of Americans do not want a socialist country.
We know what a socialist is, and without doubt, Mr. Obama qualifies. Now let’s look at what’s wrong with socialism; why we wouldn’t want it here. If we are going to discuss the Presidency of Barack Obama, we need to be articulate about why we oppose what he intends to do to our nation.
Socialists constantly speak in terms of “fairness,” and define redistribution of the nation’s wealth an act of morality; “economic justice,” to use Mr. Obama’s phrase. Then they use epithets to describe those of us who disagree with them: “greedy,” “old fashioned,” holding “old worn out ideas,” “stuck in the 20th century.”
The use of rhetoric is critical for the government to mislead the citizenry in order to make an America that almost no one wants. As you listen to these issues being discussed, or are talking in the lunchroom, be careful to deconstruct the language being used. In order to help you articulate your thoughts and be persusive, I offer 10 arguments in opposition to the socialist utopia the Obama Administration is furiously creating.
Socialism requires the government to treat different people differently
We might call this “inequality under the law.” The money socialists seek to give to some must be taken from others; confiscated by government bureaucrats under penalty of federal law and prosecution without the person’s consent. This is government as Robin Hood. Enriching some may be thought good, but impoverishing others in order to do it can never be moral or “fair.”
Socialism destroys motivation
Consider the negative message it communicates with those motivated to work hard to accumulate wealth for their family. Why should we expect that motivated people will remain motivated to produce when they know the government is going to take it away from them and their children in order to give it to someone else? What will be the result to our overall economic growth when motivated people no longer find it advantageous to be motivated? Will not the whole economy suffer?
Socialism requires massive government intrusion into the personal life of the citizens
Socialism requires further increasing the power of the central government over every nuance of every citizen’s life (it must know what you eat, how much energy you use, how far you travel to work if you have a job, if you eat out, if you have any other income, and on and on) in order to “qualify” you for the benefits of socialism, or to “qualify” you as one of the people who have to pay for it. By this means, the government further constricts freedom (violating those “negative liberties” Obama talks about).
Socialism corrupts government
Socialism focuses the energy of the government toward determining who will be economically harmed and who will be economically blessed. Since everyone has an interest in what the government is doing, it leaves legislators and bureaucrats subject to manipulation; and thus corrupts our system of government.
Socialism rewards laziness
Creating the expectation of enrichment through confiscation of the wealth of others by governmental force will encourage lassitude and lethargy of the citizenry because if one can be enriched by not working at all, why would you do it?
Socialism punishes risk
When motivated people understand that they will be punished by governmental meddling in how much they make, it will lower the willingness of many to take risks, to delay gratification, and hard work to gain personal success. Why take risks, delay gratification and work hard if you get punished for it? Someone said, “Socialism is a great thing so long as you have enough capitalists around to pay for it.” The problem is, socialism kills the capitalist motive to accumulate wealth.
Socialism rewards selfishness
Socialism encourages consideration of self only rather than affirming equal opportunity for all even though it may result in unequal outcomes. People in socialistic economies grow comfortable with high unemployment, and have no motivation to accomplish things that are greater than themselves. The United States takes on much of the defense of the free world, and we do so because we believe in things besides enriching ourselves, but socialist nations don’t bother to concern themselves much with anything larger than themselves. This is why we see so little support among the socialist states in Europe for defending the world from radical Islamic terror. The U.S. has to be the world’s policeman because socialists are consumed with insuring the benefits they personally receive through the government as it steals the wealth from others. So we have a few Germans troops helping us – a few hundred – who can’t do much because they are so overweight; and many from other countries who will hand out food or drive a truck, but not carry a gun and fight. Most socialist countries no longer have even the will to survive. That’s someone else’s battle; the socialist’s main concern is their personal welfare and fun. (Think about how safe the world will be when the U.S. is socialized and most Americans think what’s left of the country is not worth saving.)
Socialism divides the country, and encourages envy and class warfare
Socialists promote support for their ideas among the masses by encouraging people to focus on what they don’t have using envy of others as a means of carrying out government policy. “It is not actual suffering but a taste of better things which excites people to revolt,” Eric Hoffer. The tactic is: demonize those you would impoverish; lionize those you would enrich; set them at war against each other. Divide and conquer. Thus the government engages in opprobrium against many of its own citizens; participates in pitting one citizen against another for purposes of implementing their personal idea of the perfect state. Sneaking it into existence, and avoiding democracy and transparency at all costs.
Socialism turns higher education into an expensive leisurely diversion
Socialism creates circumstances where the motive for higher education as a means to improving earning potential disappears. Higher education in socialistic countries is largely paid for with money earned by others, then laundered through the government; so perpetual education becomes an end in itself rather than a pathway to accumulating more for one’s family. Higher education thus becomes daycare for those who enjoy learning at others’ expense, so one need not actually get a job.
Socialism makes government the center of all human activity since all property gets divvied up by bureaucrats
Since socialism is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul, who falls into the “Peter” Category, and who is in the “Paul” Category becomes crucial. Thus it promotes endless organizing on the part of beneficiaries – the winners – to lobby the government for ever more benefits; and yet more organizing on the part of those who pay for it – the losers – to prevent the government from extracting even more of their substance. Capitalism means that some earn more wealth than others; socialism means that all share misery equally.
So what can we do?
It is my opinion that the Obama administration is absolutely committed to ushering in irreversible socialistic policies and is willing to lose control of the Congress in two years if that is the price to pay. In addition, Mr. Obama himself has already said that if he is a one-term President, so be it. So he is perfectly willing to serve for only 1 term – 4 years – as President if he can force the country into the mold of what he thinks constitutes the good society.
I propose that we must step into the street and force a halt to this socializing juggernaught. In America, the people rule, and they rule through their elected representatives in Congress and the Senate, and the Presidency. Truthfully these legislators can support whatever proposals they wish and completely ignore their citizens, suffering only when it’s time for re-election. Practically, they are pussycats, afraid of the shadow of a mass of people who “peaceably assemble to seek redress of grievance.” A few million citizens cluttering up Washington DC listening to conservative speakers, demanding respect for our traditions will force the Congress to delay and let die their evil intentions. I add that it would be important to have no politician seeking or holding office recognized or seen on any stage at such an event; it would have to be a citizen’s assembly. It would also be important not to make such a gathering too narrow else we risk losing what unifies us.
A well-behaved, mannerly, peaceful, articulate gathering of a few million people could turn this power-grab around on a dime. If there is anything a politician fears, it is an aroused, informed group of citizens who are willing to take some time and spend some money to let the government know what they want and don’t want.
Think about it; Comment and let me know your thoughts about how we might pull this off.