Socialism Is a Rhetorical Fig Leaf

November 6, 2011 by Socialism No Comments

“Socialism,” “economic justice,” “income redistribution,” and “fairness,”  are rhetorical fig leaves invented to cover two of the seven deadly sins: naked envy, and greed.

These are presented as economic theories because people simply do not have the courage to publicly admit they want more of your stuff. Envy and greed are unseemly and vulgar; on the other hand, socialism, economic justice, and income redistribution sound trendy and intellectual.

Socialism – by whatever name it uses – is the impossible dream that invariably turns into a bloody nightmare.  Just witness the burning streets in Athens and Oakland.  For that matter, consider Cambodia under Pol Pot, Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Cuba under Castro and Guevara. It makes promises it can never keep and it’s promise is to overcome the human condition itself.  It makes people believe that human frailty can be corrected through the right government regulations.  It attempts to enforce an equality that nature has not intended.

Enforced by Coercion

It can only be implemented by using the coercive power of government to forcibly confiscate private property from individuals who have acquired it so it can be given to people who did not earn it according to a metric developed by government bureaucrats who are very well paid to openly carry out the theft.

Socialism is no economic theory.  It is only a story told; a fiction.

Again, socialism is a like a mirage: it promises something you desperately want; but as you move toward it, it disappears and turns into a withering desert.  It cannot be achieved.  Ask the Greeks, the Italians, the Portuguese, and the Irish.

It will never go away though because envy and greed are universal flaws of human nature.  Like other intrinsic sins, we must personally work to overcome them ; they will not be overcome by a moralistic government which chooses to use its power to attempt to recreate the human condition.

It will never go away because it is a way of sounding intellectually and morally superior.  It actually seems intuitive.

Socialism: Rhetoric not Economics

People who are motivated by envy will never respond to arguments about the economic superiority of capitalism because ‘socialism’ isn’t about economics – it’s about wanting more of somebody elses’ stuff.

In order to deal with the Party of Envy, we must quit rushing forward to bayonet the straw men they continually set up.  We must deal with the real enemies – envy and greed.

The arguments of the Party of Envy range from, “I think it’s a good idea to spread the wealth around, don’t you?” to “We stand in favor of economic justice don’t you?”

These questions are what lawyers call “leading questions” because the question contains the answer the questioner is looking for.  These kinds of questions cannot be asked in a court, and we should never respond to them the way they are asked.

The questions all contain planted axioms, viz., one person controls the wealth and therefore another person cannot accumulate it; the envious alone are capable of deciding who is wealthy and who isn’t; the Party of Envy alone is qualified to decide who gets what, define fairness,  and so on.

These questions and propositions frequently put forward by “journalists” in the attempt to cover the vulgarity of envy.

The Party of Envy redefines envy and greed as moral virtues depending on who is envious and greedy; so they are always presenting their case in moral terms rather than economic ones.

Arguing About Socialism

In order to refute these arguments and save our republic, we must respond to them on moral grounds not economic grounds.  Remember, the issues are envy and greed, not economics.

When it is suggested that it is more moral to spread the wealth around, we should ask, “Are you suggesting that the President thinks it’s a moral good thing for him to spread my wealth around?  That may sound good in the abstract, but exactly whose money are you proposing to take?  Who exactly are you proposing to give it to?  The President earns more than I do.  I think it’s a moral thing for me to spread his wealth around – wouldn’t you agree that that would be moral by your definition?  You have no idea how much of my money I already spread around.  So who are you to suggest I would be more moral if I acted according to the President’s definition than to my own?”

When asked if we believe in economic fairness, we should respond by saying, “Absolutely!  Now you tell me — who gets to determine what’s fair?  Seriously, tell me right now what you think is fair, and tell me why your idea of fairness is better than my idea of fairness.”  Question the questioner.

The Consequences of Socialism

Government employees giving your substance to a person you do not know and who may refuse to change their destructive behavior cannot possibly be defended in moral terms.

Thankfulness is Excluded

When the person receives your money as an entitlement to them, it means that they have no obligation to be thankful for the help: why should they be thankful — the government ways they deserve it!

Entitlements exclude thankfulness and encourage more greed and envy.  If there are thanks at all, they go to the politician who gave them your money – not you.  You remain nameless and faceless.

Resentment Increases

Worse, you are denounced by the Party of Envy as being wealthy, greedy, stingy, and evil; so the person who receives your wealth as an entitlement is taught to hate you for having earned it.

Charity is Excluded

Charity is excluded; thankfulness is excluded.  You are denounced.  Resentment increases.

But if I am permitted by the government to engage in the gift of true charity, I give because I desire to do so.  I give to a person known to me to be worthy of my sacrifice; a person who has shown responsibility in the past.

In this case both charity and true thanksgiving are accomplished.  Resentment is diminished.  In addition, both I and the recipient can mutually admire what my gift has accomplished in their life; everyone is rewarded.

The Party of Envy considers true charity to be immoral and unfair.  It’s their belief that only highly paid government bureaucrats are capable of giving my money away.

So, what’s the latest proposal from President Obama and the Party of Envy?  They propose to tax you for financially supporting charitable work — the government needs that money more than the poor and sick!  They are preparing to punish you for giving away your own money.  Entitlements rule.