NationStates Jolt Archive

This article is kinda old, but I just stumbled across it today. Great stuff.


Source (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040728.shtml)


Socialism is Evil
by Walter 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.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Thoughts?

According to the Bible, God has only once ever intervened to direct humans how to build a society. It was a socialist society.

Even if taxes are theft, they are justified. I doubt that the conservative who wrote that article would proclaim that war is never justified just because killing is wrong.

According to the Bible, God has only once ever intervened to direct humans how to build a society. It was a socialist society.
Hm. I wouldn't have dignified the religious segment of this argument with a response. Curious move.

Even if taxes are theft, they are justified. I doubt that the conservative who wrote that article would proclaim that war is never justified just because killing is wrong.
If it's justified, please tell us why. I already know what you're going to say, but humor us. You can't honestly think you'll be taken seriously by saying simply "It's justified" in response to an argument, no?

According to the Bible, God has only once ever intervened to direct humans how to build a society. It was a socialist society.

Even if taxes are theft, they are justified. I doubt that the conservative who wrote that article would proclaim that war is never justified just because killing is wrong.

I agree. I see socialism as an ideal economic platform, but one that won't work in the real world. And yes, minimal taxes are justified, as they are put back towards the good of the people.

Even if taxes are theft, they are justified. I doubt that the conservative who wrote that article would proclaim that war is never justified just because killing is wrong.

Why are they justified? It doesn't seem right to take the money that I worked for and took the time to get the education to earn it, and give it to others regardless of merit, or spend it on services the private sector could supply better.

I agree. I see socialism as an ideal economic platform, but one that won't work in the real world. And yes, minimal taxes are justified, as they are put back towards the good of the people.
Indeed it annoys me supremely that a morally inferior system like capitalism works better than a more morally virtuous socialist system in reality. Mind you, social democracy a la Sweden has been shown to work quite well.

According to the Bible, God has only once ever intervened to direct humans how to build a society. It was a socialist society.

No it wasn't.

Even if taxes are theft, they are justified. I doubt that the conservative who wrote that article would proclaim that war is never justified just because killing is wrong.

Theft is theft, and theft is always wrong. Killing is always wrong, unless it's done in self-defense or if you're putting a murderer to death.

Any form of government will fail and fall without just and benevolent leaders.

Any form of government will fail and fall without just and benevolent leaders.
So all forms of government today will fail and fall?

Indeed it annoys me supremely that a morally inferior system like capitalism works better than a more morally virtuous socialist system in reality. Mind you, social democracy a la Sweden has been shown to work quite well.

The only problem is that Sweden has a population of only 9 million and an almost flat population growth rate. That system could not work on the scale of a faster growing nation like the United States; socialist systems hardly work at all in Germany and France, whose populations are only about 1/3 and 1/4 of the US', respectively.

Indeed it annoys me supremely that a morally inferior system like capitalism works better than a more morally virtuous socialist system in reality. Mind you, social democracy a la Sweden has been shown to work quite well.

Nothing is moral about socialism. The Bible clearly states: "Thou shalt not steal."

Indeed it annoys me supremely that a morally inferior system like capitalism works better than a more morally virtuous socialist system in reality. Mind you, social democracy a la Sweden has been shown to work quite well.
And the fact that it obviously doesnt work in reality isn't telling you something about its theory? If it's not grounded in reality, how can it be grounded in morality?

Nothing is moral about socialism. The Bible clearly states: "Thou shalt not steal."

Indeed, but the bible also says "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and help those in need, etc. It's not stealing if you give it away, Which is why I think Private charity works better than welfare.

Ah, but the socialist system in Germany and France can hardly be said to be similar to the so-called Scandinavian System, can it?

One big difference being the way the (damn, my inferior English cripples my point).. the word.. work-market? is put together..

If you take a look at the Scandinavian model, I think you'll see it is very effective.

Carsten

Ah, but the socialist system in Germany and France can hardly be said to be similar to the so-called Scandinavian System, can it?
One big difference being the way the (damn, my inferior English cripples my point).. the word.. work-market? is put together..
If you take a look at the Scandinavian model, I think you'll see it is very effective.

Yes, they are vastly different, but many of the ideas the make the Scandinavian model successful would not be able to be applied to larger countries. The concept of full employment that they emphasize would not work as well in the US because we have a bigger section of the population that simply refuses to work.

Scandinavian social democracy would work, but only if that indolence could be eliminated. There are cultural differences that would make the system near impossible to implement in the US.

The philosophy behind this article must be examined more closely before the arguments inherent faults can be fully realized.

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.

The argument is simple enough; redistribution of wealth is unjustified by this person’s political philosophy.

The flaw emerges when we reach other matters; the most obvious being law enforcement. In this case peoples wealth are being taxed and given to officers of the law, to whom the wealth didn’t belong. It is done by force and coercion as much as redistribution is done.

But you respond, “Law enforcement is vital to the healthy functioning society.”

I won’t say this is not true, but it doesn’t justify the theft of my dollars; to defend SOMEONE ELSE’S property. My money can’t be morally spent to feed the starving child by the government, and it certainly can’t be spent to use the police; to prevent the starving child’s parents from taking your stuff.

In the end we collapse into anarchy, and life becomes brutish and short.

NOTE:
The amount welfare offsets the crime rate tends to decrease total government expenditure at low to medium levels of welfare. If you let a little more be stolen, a little less might actually be stolen.

'Yes, they are vastly different, but many of the ideas the make the Scandinavian model successful would not be able to be applied to larger countries. The concept of full employment that they emphasize would not work as well in the US because we have a bigger section of the population that simply refuses to work.

Scandinavian social democracy would work, but only if that indolence could be eliminated. There are cultural differences that would make the system near impossible to implement in the US.'

Yes, but these cultural differences, as large as they may be, are open for change, if you give it a go. I refuse to believe that the changes we have achieved in Denmark, where I am from, since the mid-thirties could not be achieved in the USA, if given a fair chance. The only argument I can think of being the Elite unwilling to give it a try, because it would hit them economicly right in the nadgers. Which brings us to the matter of the state. You see, the state is neccessary, as we as human beings are unable to give up our advantages. If I, or any of you, were given 1mio $, we would instantly take them, and say 'screw you' to the rest of the world. Thus we need the state to carry out the moral codex we choose as human beings in our wise moments. I may be rambling, and it sure is one hell of an introduction to the forum, so I will stop for now. I excuse my inferior quoting, I haven't had the time to look into it as of yet..

Carsten - writing at 3.49 in the morning ;)

Yes, but these cultural differences, as large as they may be, are open for change, if you give it a go. I refuse to believe that the changes we have achieved in Denmark, where I am from, since the mid-thirties could not be achieved in the USA, if given a fair chance. The only argument I can think of being the Elite unwilling to give it a try, because it would hit them economicly right in the nadgers. Which brings us to the matter of the state. You see, the state is neccessary, as we as human beings are unable to give up our advantages. If I, or any of you, were given 1mio $, we would instantly take them, and say 'screw you' to the rest of the world. Thus we need the state to carry out the moral codex we choose as human beings in our wise moments. I may be rambling, and it sure is one hell of an introduction to the forum, so I will stop for now. I excuse my inferior quoting, I haven't had the time to look into it as of yet..

Carsten - writing at 3.49 in the morning ;)

I try to help what I can, and I personally wouldn't mind social democracy if we could get it to work. Change will take time, however, because it will have to come from within; there is a lack of personal responsibility within the "refuse to work" culture that we can't solve from outside.

The wealthy elite do perpetuate some of these problems (cheap labor, when they can get it), but at the same time there are rich people who earned their money. We have to strike a balance between unfair taxation and fair taxation, and that's where the democracy part of it comes in to socialism. The people have to decide.A mix of personal and cultural responsibility, supported by an efficent, comprehensive and fair state socialism would work well, but it would take decades. Still, I worry that we simply wouldn't want to put the effort in.

Quoting is easy. Look in the lower right corner of each post. There's a little icon that says "quote". Click on it and you can quote with attribution.

Lastly, welcome to the forums. I think you'll fit in well. :)

Oh, and it's only 9:59 PM here in the US. I've still got a few hours. :p

Is this generally about taxes as a whole or just the way they are spent? Because without the funding that taxes generally provide, you don't have public services anymore. No more roads, no highways, police, emergency services etc, etc. The stuff that the government normally provides.

So if minus taxes, the government can't really provide anything. And shortly thereafter, it might collapse. Result? Anarchy.

Or is it just about the way taxes are spent?

Nothing is moral about socialism. The Bible clearly states: "Thou shalt not steal."

and you clearly didn't actually read much of the bible. god commands the redistribution of wealth and a sort of a limited welfare state. and then you've got the communist apostles of jesus...

and you clearly didn't actually read much of the bible. god commands the redistribution of wealth and a sort of a limited welfare state. and then you've got the communist apostles of jesus...

I don't recall a commandment saying "Thou shall give what thee makes to the government, and thou shall get what thou needs in return".

But it does advocate socialism, in the aspect of helping others when they need it. I fail to see the part where the government is involved...

socialism would be great idealy, but it is difficult to maintain, there would be no rulers social classes, and all would be payed the same, so there would be no financial classes.

You are probably thinking about what Stalin did, he twisted Socialism into a Dictatorship.

You are probably thinking about what Stalin did, he twisted Socialism into a Dictatorship.
Pretty ironic there, that a system designed to make everyone equal resulted in a small, elite party and 1 man with absolute control.

People really can be jackasses.

I don't recall a commandment saying "Thou shall give what thee makes to the government, and thou shall get what thou needs in return".

But it does advocate socialism, in the aspect of helping others when they need it. I fail to see the part where the government is involved...

change out the word 'government' for 'levites' or 'apostles' and you have a pretty close match. and they were a theocracy, you know.

change out the word 'government' for 'levites' or 'apostles' and you have a pretty close match. and they were a theocracy, you know.

That's true. I'd embrace a socialist theocracy with open arms. (Albeit if it was small, and comprised of only the willing.)

Is this generally about taxes as a whole or just the way they are spent? Because without the funding that taxes generally provide, you don't have public services anymore. No more roads, no highways, police, emergency services etc, etc. The stuff that the government normally provides.

So if minus taxes, the government can't really provide anything. And shortly thereafter, it might collapse. Result? Anarchy.

Or is it just about the way taxes are spent?
Depends on who you ask. An Anarchist will advocate precisely what you mentioned, a Libertarian will differ on a number of points, and an Orthodox Objectivist will tell you that the only legitimate recipients of taxes, morally speaking, are the courts, police, and military.

I think it's a combination of both.

A Sociallist Theocracy. That would suit me just fine. We should get started on it right away.

Oh God. Not this crappy article again. I've probably line-by-lined this thing three times now.

I may just have to archive my standard response so I won't have to go through the effort again, but here goes:


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.

Yes and no. The true essence of socialism has nothing to do with private property rights per se, so much as it does making sure that all people, and not just the bourgeouisie, have control of the means of production. A communist would have no problem with a person maintaining absolute, private control over a house, a dog, or a shirt. He would just have a guff with you if you tried to claim as your property something like the produce creating by farming arable land, or the products created by a factory, because it is the proletariat as a whole that now owns said land and factory.

So he is mistaken when he says that socialism is about the ultimate abolition of property rights, for two reasons. The first is that only certain kinds of property are of interest to the Marxist, and the second is that technically, property is redistributed so that everyone controls the property that is of concern to the Marxist; so in that sense you could still say that you "own" a factory as a former bourgeois in a communist system, just that you no longer have exclusive ownership.


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.

Okay, here's where he gets into some deep puckey, for two reasons.

The first reason is that taxation is not the same as theft, though he tries to equate them via sleight of hand. The reason why taxation is not the same as theft is because there are different motives behind them: a thief takes something to personally benefit himself, whereas a taxman takes money because the system he represents needs that money to benefit everybody. In short, theives don't pawn watches so that they can buy the neighborhood vaccinations against the flu, but governments do. Now, you might ask why motives are important. I would say that they were by virtue of a simple thought experiment: most people if asked would say that a person who tried and failed to take someone's watch is still a thief, even though no goods actually were redistributed. By contrast, someone who found a watch and took it to the lost-and-found would not be a thief, even though goods did change hands. So what do we learn from this thought experiment? We learn that intent matters when it comes to assigning whether or not someone committed theft far more than the actual act of goods being exchanged.

The second problem with this line of reasoning is that if that is the definition of theft, then capitalism is just as much a system based on theft as Williams' tortured rendering of socialism. You see, capitalism is based upon the concept of "profit", and what is profit? It is nothing more or less than the surplus capital generated by your workers. Ah, but therein lays the problem: if your workers generated the capital in the first place by their effort, isn't it their capital and not yours? If so, then the very act of profit is taking from a person what is not theirs and giving it to another who had no part in the generation of that capital. Ergo, it's theft. So if you want to hang socialism with the noose of theft, you're actually going to find that capitalism will hang a lot more readily with that argument.


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.

Although its admirable that Williams has memorized Ayn Rand chapter and verse, there is still the problem of sleight of hand in this argument. If you don't like the level of taxation, you can vote to change it. If you don't like taxation at all, you can live in Somalia. If you don't like the way your slaver is treating you, however, you can't vote to change his behavior, because the real essence of slavery is that he gets a say and you don't. So there is something very different between the way in which the government taxes its citizens and slavery.


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.

. . .Or they can do it by getting a mandate from the public to do it via vote. Maybe he's knows something about American history that I don't. Or maybe its vice versa.


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?

This is all true. But it says nothing about whether government taxation is de jure or de facto the same as apartheid and Nazi persecution. Personally, I find filling out my 1040A every April to be a lot less dangerous than a trip to Auschwitz or Dachau, and given that the purpose of paying those taxes is different than those actions (in those cases, the telos of the government's action was toward deliberately benefitting the few to the detriment of the many, whereas taxes seem the opposite), I see them as two distinctly different government actions, one just and the other not. But perhaps I'm mistaken on that point.


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.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

And the grand finale. Of course, Williams forgets to mention that Jesus was neither for nor against taxation. When asked, he said that you should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", which most Christians have interpreted to mean that so long as government action doesn't deliberately violate your faith, you should obey the law. So if the government asks you to pray to Zeus, you should refuse, but if it asks you to pay a higher marginal income tax than you would like, you ought to obey.

Given that he hasn't proven that taxation equals theft, he has problems with his definition of theft (in that seems to include capitalism as theft as well), and that he doesn't seem to know anything about what Jesus or Augustine said about taxation and the rule of law, I think that on the whole, it seems safe to dismiss this article as the work of a crackpot it is. Hopefully I won't see this article again.

i am a socilist from the usa i do not view it as evil. but that is beside the fact.any thing can be use as good or bad it is all about how you use your konalege and that is the truth.socialism is good wene do riet but on one has yet.

*Stuff*
Well, I had a lot of insightful, yet quirky things to say about this topic. It seems that Xenophobialand has already said them much clearer and more succinctly than I could.

Kudos.