In your own word, why is socialism evil?

[Kraig]

Since I think most of us agree on this, I'm really curious to see exactly what and why everyone believes this. I appreciate any comments anyone is willing to leave.

[__27__]

Really? You really need to ask this?

What is the very basis for socialism? The eradication of the individual, and the glorification of the "collective". You don't get any more anti-liberty than that.

[Anti Federalist]

...no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force."

[acptulsa]

Good, evil, good, evil. You're no religious fundamentalist. Or are you?

In a nuclear family, socialism is anything but evil. Works, too. On the federal level, socialism fails every time and causes evil effects when it does. Furthermore, evil people tend to get ahold of the reigns of power, and socialism enables them to perform incredible amounts of evil when they do.

In between, we have in between.

A horsewhip is not evil. But there are few things one can do with it that aren't evil, and even when you use it carefully the odds that you'll screw up and cause some evil with it anyway are great. There's your socialism.

[pcosmar]

In a nutshell,
It ignores the rights of the Individual, and places the Collective (state) as supreme.
The "greater good for the greater number"does not protect the rights of the Individual. (minority)

[Kraig]

Really? You really need to ask this?

What is the very basis for socialism? The eradication of the individual, and the glorification of the "collective". You don't get any more anti-liberty than that.

No I don't "need" to, like I said I am just curious. As far as what you said, why is the individual better than the collective? Why is liberty good and anti-liberty bad?

[__27__]

No I don't "need" to, like I said I am just curious. As far as what you said, why is the individual better than the collective? Why is liberty good and anti-liberty bad?

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

[silverhandorder]

Socialism is legal theft. No one has the right to give government powers they do not have them selves.

Oh and individual owns :).

[acptulsa]

No I don't "need" to, like I said I am just curious. As far as what you said, why is the individual better than the collective?

Who says it is?

The collective is several to many individuals. They deserve their respect too. Until they decide they need to micromanage or otherwise harm the individual outside their group. Then they're engaging in pride, greed, intellectual sloth, a few more deadly sins, the ultimate arrogance, and extremely counterproductive behavior. Even if they do it with the best of intentions, that's evil behavior.

[pcosmar]

No I don't "need" to, like I said I am just curious. As far as what you said, why is the individual better than the collective? Why is liberty good and anti-liberty bad?

Clear and concise explanation here.

YouTube - -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E)

[erowe1]

This is at bottom a religious question. If such a thing as an absolute moral law (and hence a law giver, God) exists, and if God has revealed this law to us, then the answers to questions of right and wrong need to be resolved by appeal to that revealed law of God. As a Christian my understanding of political ethics is a subset of a broader system of ethics revealed in the Bible. And it would not be very difficult to demonstrate that coerced socialism is evil (and I only presume you're talking about coerced socialism, and not some kind of voluntary association). I don't know if you accept the authority of the Bible or not, so I won't spell out the specifics with proof texts. But there's really no potential to resolve a question of absolute morality like this without appeal to religion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Socialism (including State Socialism, aka Fascism) requires centralization of authority and diminishing of the individual (and murder, if need be), as well as the glorification of the State. That's evil.

[Elwar]

Socialism = theft.

[speciallyblend]

Socialism (including State Socialism, aka Fascism) requires centralization of authority and diminishing of the individual (and murder, if need be), as well as the glorification of the State. That's evil.

well we do not have to worry about socialism when we have a fascist-socialized government brought on by bush/obama and the gop!the gop has no credibility on attacking obama and obama knows this and the ones to blame for this are not obama but the gop leadership!

it is hard for the gop to attack socialism. when the gop are basically fascists!

the gop really has 0 credibility with a majority of voters!!

everyone attacking obama should redirect their attacks and concerns to the gop leadership! obama didn't cause a gop meltdown. the gop did and the meltdown continues since they are not listening! what has changed in the gop platform?? not a dam thing yet! has anyone made a change in their state platform to support liberty?? all i have seen is more fringe right wing crap!!

bottom line is the cogop sent 2 great ron paul republicans to the dems! well at least we can vote for ron paul dems now instead of republican neo-cons!

[RevolutionSD]

Since I think most of us agree on this, I'm really curious to see exactly what and why everyone believes this. I appreciate any comments anyone is willing to leave.

Socialism requires violence from the state to achieve its ends and is completely immoral.

[acptulsa]

Wait a minute, the thread title doesn't say words it says 'word'. That's different.

Because.

[speciallyblend]

Wait a minute, the thread title doesn't say words it says 'word'. That's different.

Because.

GOP(one word) context(gop elected obama)

[Kraig]

In a nuclear family, socialism is anything but evil. Works, too. On the federal level, socialism fails every time and causes evil effects when it does. Furthermore, evil people tend to get ahold of the reigns of power, and socialism enables them to perform incredible amounts of evil when they do.

Great point, does how does one know where to draw the line? On the family level, two parents can "all of the family's property is 'the family's', but as mother and father, we have the highest authority in deciding when and how it is used". Most would agree parents like that would be okay in their decision to claim authority over the rest of the family's property, and would even call them good parents for doing so. Take the same concept and apply it to my neighborhood, my county, my town, my state, my country, or my planet. Where do you draw the line?


Wait a minute, the thread title doesn't say words it says 'word'. That's different.

Because.

Just a typo, I wish I could edit it.

[heavenlyboy34]

well we do not have to worry about socialism when we have a fascist-socialized government brought on by bush/obama and the gop!the gop has no credibility on attacking obama and obama knows this and the ones to blame for this are not obama but the gop leadership!

it is hard for the gop to attack socialism. when the gop are basically fascists!

the gop really has 0 credibility with a majority of voters!!

everyone attacking obama should redirect their attacks and concerns to the gop leadership! obama didn't cause a gop meltdown. the gop did and the meltdown continues since they are not listening! what has changed in the gop platform?? not a dam thing yet! has anyone made a change in their state platform to support liberty?? all i have seen is more fringe right wing crap!!

bottom line is the cogop sent 2 great ron paul republicans to the dems! well at least we can vote for ron paul dems now instead of republican neo-cons!

I agree that Republicans should do more introspection and realize the errors of their own fascist ways. Your posts are always so funny, sb! I'm glad you're here, because you're one of the few that are still amusing and intelligent on a regular basis. :D:):cool:

[shocker315]

Socialism strives for an unrealistic vision of equality at the expense fo personal freedom. Regardless if total equality is truely desirable. The only way equality has ever come close to being achieved is through coercion (force) of government. Socialism is not voluntary...it is the use of government power to achieve it ends set forth by those in leadership positions... which always leads to tryanny...and a loss of individual freedom. Also, those in the leadership positions of government are rarley "equal" to those outside of it. Thus, individuals gravitate to those positions in governmet... perpetuating its growth.

[acptulsa]

Great point, does how does one know where to draw the line? On the family level, two parents can "all of the family's property is 'the family's', but as mother and father, we have the highest authority in deciding when and how it is used". Most would agree parents like that would be okay in their decision to claim authority over the rest of the family's property, and would even call them good parents for doing so. Take the same concept and apply it to my neighborhood, my city, my town, my state, my country, or my planet. Where do you draw the line?

The Constitution draws the line at the state level. Wish we could get it back in force. It allows for none at the federal level; all those who push it through anyway and all those justices who fail to overturn it are just wrong, and just traitors.

I would not draw the line there. I would leave any state that embraced it. But I would merely leave such a state; I'll fight to the death to end it at the federal level (if that's what it comes down to).

[Kraig]

The Constitution draws the line at the state level. Wish we could get it back in force. It allows for none at the federal level; all those who push it through anyway and all those justices who fail to overturn it are just wrong, and just traitors.

I would not draw the line there. I would leave any state that embraced it. But I would merely leave such a state; I'll fight to the death to end it at the federal level (if that's what it comes down to).

What would you do if you get what you want, it is truly restricted to the state level, and all states embrace it? (as all states do in the world today) What are your options then? Fight it to the death at the state level?

[Conza88]

In a nuclear family, socialism is anything but evil. Works, too.

No. It doesn't.


Just want to add a comment in relation to the: families being 'communistic' or 'socialist'. I used to think that, but they really aren't.

It is called:

Human Action - X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY
1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange (http://mises.org/humanaction/chap10sec1.asp)

... "Making one-sided presents without the aim of being rewarded by any conduct on the part of the receiver or of third persons is autistic exchange. The donor acquires the satisfaction which the better condition of the receiver gives to him. The receiver gets the present as a God-sent gift. But if presents are given in order to influence some people's conduct, they are no longer one-sided, but a variety of interpersonal exchange between the donor and the man whose conduct they are designed to influence. Although the emergence of interpersonal exchange was the result of a long evolution, no gradual transition is conceivable between autistic and interpersonal exchange."...

And it continues.. so in the family unit, dad essentially works, provides food for the family. It could be considered a gift, because he loves them, or naturally his self interest - they, in turn for getting food, shelter, clothing - help around the house doing chores as payment. Wants to see them prosper and grow into productive members of society.

[Conza88]

http://images.google.com.au/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkSSURCm3FI/ScCTZIl4m6I/AAAAAAAABoE/aad2Bv4SkkU/s400/socialism.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHceJ9SswqylqzqNiX2f3-3AvoaUA

[acptulsa]

What would you do if you get what you want, it is truly restricted to the state level, and all states embrace it? (as all states do in the world today) What are your options then? Fight it to the death at the state level?

I don't see it. Make liberty that accessible, and we'll freaking take over a state if we have to. Not by force; that isn't necessary if the Constitution is back in full force with its letter and its spirit respected.

And from what I know of Oklahomans, in particular, I really, really don't think we'd have to take one over by overwhelming the voter base, either. We'll keep the liberty fires going; y'all come on down when you've had enough.


No. It doesn't.

Whatever. Define it as you will. My relationship with my cat is socialistic yet not evil then; I'll maintain it to my dying day, you don't have enough information to disprove this statement; the cat's not talking. Rip that one.

And insult me while you're at it. But don't insult the cat, mate. :mad:

[Kraig]

Nice point conza, I agree "socialism" in the family is not in any way the same as government socialism (where the word is actually used commonly), that's just not where I was going with this.

[max]

It involves stealing from people ......simple as that

[Kraig]

I don't see it. Make liberty that accessible, and we'll freaking take over a state if we have to. Not by force; that isn't necessary if the Constitution is back in full force with its letter and its spirit respected.

And from what I know of Oklahomans, in particular, I really, really don't think we'd have to take one over by overwhelming the voter base, either. We'll keep the liberty fires going; y'all come on down when you've had enough.

Wouldn't you have to use force to enforce the Constitution? Or would you just sit back and wait for everyone to agree to follow it?

Basically what you said is force isn't needed if the Constitution is respected, but they don't respect it, we both know that. Maybe in the future they will?

[Conza88]

Whatever. Define it as you will. My relationship with my cat is socialistic yet not evil then; I'll maintain it to my dying day, you don't have enough information to disprove this statement; the cat's not talking. Rip that one.

Lmao... :D


And insult me while you're at it. But don't insult the cat, mate. :mad:

YouTube - Cat Stack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWZo10Nj96w)

[BillyDkid]

Advocates of socialism (or almost any collectivism) always like to argue that it is "good in principle". But it isn't even good in principle. It is corrupt in principle. Sure, sharing and taking care of people is a good thing and we should all be free to do that, but I should not be free to take resources from you in order to be generous with them to somebody else. And all of this doesn't even take into account the inescapable flaws in all of us.

People are always saying libertarianism is utopian. That is exactly what it is not. It recognizes that people are corruptable and greedy and self serving - some more than others - and therefore we should not give some people significant power over others. Socialism seems to think there is some subset of the population that good and generous and fair and not susceptible to corruption and these are the people who should be divying out resources and rights and opportunities. Both the right and the left think they are the good guys. Libertarians recognize they, themselves are just as flawed as everybody else and no one should hold a position of power over the lives of others.

Of course, now people point to the vast inequity in wealth in the world and in this country and saying it is wrong. I honestly don't hold with people accumulating and having vastly more resources than any 1000 people could use in a life time while others have absolutely nothing and don't even know where their next meal is coming from, but the question is "How it get that way?" I would argue that vast inequities in wealth come largely from the abuse of official power and access to power and is the result of some handful of people having unrightful power over the lives of others.

Some people have gotten rich through honest, free market capitalism and that is great and how it's supposed to be, but many have gotten rich and have been protected in their riches by virtue of their access to the levers of power. My opinion is that in a true free market economy plenty of people would still be getting rich, but no one would be doing it at the expense of others and there would be a trivial number of people so disenfranchised they have no place to live on the earth and no way to feed themselves and the rest of us would easily accomodate taking care of these people with no real expense to our own well being.

[BillyDkid]

Wait, wait, wait - taking care of your family is NOT socialism. So stop saying that or suggesting that socialist government is in any way analogous to taking care of your own.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't see it. Make liberty that accessible, and we'll freaking take over a state if we have to. Not by force; that isn't necessary if the Constitution is back in full force with its letter and its spirit respected.


If the constitution was in full force and respected, there would be no need to take over a state.

;)

[Kraig]

If the constitution was in full force and respected, there would be no need to take over a state.

;)

I disagree, all powers not mentioned being enumerated to the states or the people leaves the door wide open for a state to become quite socialistic and still be following the constitution, does it not?

[nayjevin]

Since I think most of us agree on this, I'm really curious to see exactly what and why everyone believes this. I appreciate any comments anyone is willing to leave.

Fruits of labor are divided equally, but labor itself isn't -- the natural incentive to produce is gone.

Much production is then wasted in the bureaucracy of the enforcement arm, which uses its threat to ensure involuntary servitude to the state.

But the 'evil' part is that it is a violation of justice, intentionally done. It's not fair to be denied ownership of the fruits of one's labor, and that's the cornerstone of a socialist state.

[__27__]

I disagree, all powers not mentioned being enumerated to the states or the people leaves the door wide open for a state to become quite socialistic and still be following the constitution, does it not?

Vote

with

your

feet.


When a state becomes socialistic, the producers (who hold the burden of funding said state) move to a state which is not. The end result is the socialist state they left loses the funding to be socialist, and the more free state they migrate to prospers. This was the check and balance to be applied to states.

[Pod]

Because you are not permitted to keep the fruits of your labour.

[Kraig]

When a state becomes socialistic, the producers (who hold the burden of funding said state) move to a state which is not. The end result is the socialist state they left loses the funding to be socialist, and the more free state they migrate to prospers. This was the check and balance to be applied to states.

I already asked, what then do you do when all states are socialistic (which is the state of the world today)? Move to Antarctica?

[__27__]

I already asked, what then do you do when all states are socialistic (which is the state of the world today)? Move to Antarctica?

The states are only in alignment today because they no longer have rights and autonomy, they are mere intermediaries for ONE central government. That is precisely the point, however difficult it is for you to grasp. That is why we as citizens maintained DUAL citizenship, citizens of our STATE first, and the union second.

Or are you implying to me that were the central arm removed, the laws in Massachusetts and Texas would be identical and both socialist?

[Kraig]

Or are you implying to me that were the central arm removed, the laws in Massachusetts and Texas would be identical and both socialist?

Yes, of course they would have socialized elements if the central government was removed today, of course they would not be identical. If the central government is the only problem in the way of states, why are there no countries anywhere in the world that are not socialized at some level?

[__27__]

Yes, of course they would have socialized elements if the central government was removed today, of course they would not be identical. If the central government is the only problem in the way of states, why are there no countries anywhere in the world that are not socialized at some level?

What does the rest of the world have to do with us? The majority of the world is run by despots and tyrants, so your logic follows then that tomorrow if the FedGov completely backs out, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, et. al will devolve into tyranical socialist dictatorships?

Strawman fail.

[Feenix566]

In a nuclear family, socialism is anything but evil. Works, too.

Having a family is voluntary. (because sex is voluntary) Taking care of your family is a responsibility that comes from a voluntary decision (unless your family was the product of rape)

Socialism is involuntary. That's why it's immoral. Property rights, at their core, are really just decision-making authority. Socialism violates property rights. That means that under socialism, an individual does not have decision making authority over the products of his or her own labor. Labor is what we do with our time. So, under socialism, an indivudual does not have decision making authority over the products of his or her time. Life is really nothing more than time. So, under socialism, an individual does not have decision making authority over his or her own life. It's slavery.

[Kraig]

What does the rest of the world have to do with us? The majority of the world is run by despots and tyrants, so your logic follows then that tomorrow if the FedGov completely backs out, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, et. al will devolve into tyranical socialist dictatorships?

Strawman fail.

No, we are all mankind, that is what the rest of the world has to do with us. What makes you think that while the rest of the world lives under tyrannical governments, our state governments wouldn't go the same route if the tyrannical central government was removed? The USA, like the rest of the world, lives under tyranny. Yet you think that if you remove the central government, while leaving the state governments in place (state governments that are ALREADY tyrannical), they will not become tyrannical like ALL other governments have?

That is not at all a "strawman".

[mconder]

Humans are generally out seeking their own self interest with the least degree of effort and sacrifice possible. Some of the really shrewd and smart humans have figured out that they can gain power over a great many of us and use the dumbest of our lot as pawns to reap great rewards with very little effort. The idiots are awarded for their loyalty to these "smart" ones, while the rest of use suffer the injustice of that which we have earned by our own honest labor thieved from us. Those who are granted favors by the ruling class are never fully aware that they to suffer a great injustice. Isn't it obvious to anyone, that it is evil to take that which you have not earned through your own honest effort? It is theft on a grand scale, with the appearance of legitimacy.

[idirtify]

No, we are all mankind, that is what the rest of the world has to do with us. What makes you think that while the rest of the world lives under tyrannical governments, our state governments wouldn't go the same route if the tyrannical central government was removed? The USA, like the rest of the world, lives under tyranny. Yet you think that if you remove the central government, while leaving the state governments in place (state governments that are ALREADY tyrannical), they will not become tyrannical like ALL other governments have?

That is not at all a "strawman".

Kraig,

I realize this is your thread, but you seemed to have veered off-topic several posts ago. Why? Did you get your original questions answered? Do you now agree on why socialism is evil and the why liberty is better than anti-liberty?

Discussing values of different political ideologies is quite different from discussing how to reverse an evil ideology. You started with the first, but then changed it to the second. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with discussing the latter topic (since it is the main theme of Liberty Forest), but I think you should not change your argument without some kind of explanation; since it’s kind of like “changing the rules in the middle of the game”.

[idirtify]

snipped ...
But there's really no potential to resolve a question of absolute morality like this without appeal to religion.

Sans “absolute” (since this is not an “absolute” issue, but only a “better/worse” comparison, your sentence looks like a strawman), I disagree. Besides, it seems like most posters here are doing a pretty good job making a pretty good case for liberty WITHOUT REFERENCE TO RELIGION. Therein I propose that you should have stopped short of your last sentence and left your statements in the realm of “my understanding, as a Christian”. IOW, speak for yourself only.

[youngbuck]

Collectivism vs Individualism

Read http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf)

[Stary Hickory]

Socialism is slavery. And within dependency there can be no democracy. That's why protection of property rights is so vital.

[Objectivist]

Did you mean this type?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Or the National Socialism type? Which version of the day did you want?

Then the part about State ownership throws it out the window well enough for people that believe in FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Economics

It is not right thinking and is altruistic at the base.

[Young Paleocon]

Socialism is evil because socialism is a synonym for evil. Ever facet of anything regarding socialism can be cast down as impractical and against the non-aggression principle. Besides do you know what kind of people came up with modern socialism, Fourier....Marx...Rousseau....yikes, hypocrites, sloths and fucked up guys the lot of them. And medieval communism....the Anti-baptists.....Taborites....double yikes. Seriously, people need to look at where these ideas came from before they start espousing them.

[Charlie41]

Socialism = Slavery

We have a socialist society now.

Think not?

Try this on for size.

You work your back side off all week. You get your pay check, and a small percentage is missing (tax/sstax). Then you buy gas to get to work. And a major portion of this is indirect tax. (taxed several times before you pay for the gas,tax,and profit). Go to the store and buy necessary things to live on, and again the same as the gas, taxes on indirect taxes. Now your out of money, no money for liberty, the fun things in life. What are you, your a slave.

Still think not. OK, at what percent of your money going to the feds do you consider ok? And at what point would you consider taxes being too much, and your just working to give the feds money. AKA slavery.

Assuming you have a percentage answer in your head. Now figure out how much of your money actually goes to the feds every year. The hard part is figuring out indirect tax.

Assuming I calculated it correctly. I pay 65% of my income to the feds. That to me is slavery.

Example of indirect tax. This new Cap and trade crap that's being passed through congress, will double, maybe even triple your electric bill. All of this extra cost goes to the feds. This is a tax imposed on the company's, and they pass the cost on to you! This is a indirect tax.

Gas is the same. Before it even gets here from over seas it has a 10% tax (thanks to Kissinger in 1974) added to it before it's even processed here.

I'm sure some one on here can dig up more than I have about indirect tax. I'm only assuming I pay 65% based on what I have found. It may be more.

As far as you owning anything....... Your only fooling your self if you think you own anything worth anything.

Example: Your house, in most cases, the most expensive purchase you will make. If you pay it off, it's yours right? No, it's not. What will happens if you do not pay your yearly taxes on it? The feds take it. Now who owns your house?

Same with most people's second biggest purchase. Your auto. What happens if you do not put tags (tax) on it every year, or you don't pay the yearly tax. You can not legally use it.

Think about it. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

Charlie

[TRIGRHAPPY]

It steals from the productive and motivated to subsidize the lives of the unproductive and unmotivated. It is a system that is not sustainable. To support it is to sentence your children and your children's children to starvation, poverty, and economic collapse.

[andrewh817]

Socialism assumes that the government will spend your money more wisely than you will.

Socialism may be evil but it doesn't compare to fascism. In most European countries you pay lots of taxes but you get college education and paid for healthcare. In the US you pay a little less taxes (still a lot) but you don't get those services.

[teacherone]

It seems to me that the moral argument behind welfare is fundamentally flawed. The idea that we should all help those who are wanting is of course an obvious moral aspiration, but its modern application is patently immoral as it is solely focused on one side of the equation-- the happy receiver of the government welfare check. However, forgotten is that because government produces no wealth, it has forcibly extracted those funds from someone who has. There is no such thing as surplus capital; all the wealth in existence was created and earned by someone and is his property.

Forcibly removing someone else's property in order to give to another is Charitable Armed Robbery. When the State forces one individual to take care of another it denies one of his freedom to choose charity. This is not a moral act but quite the opposite. If you, as an individual would like to support the families of these auto-companies, you could purchase the company's stock, or an automobile, or directly donate to a local charity. That would be an honorable moral act of your own free will. But it is impossible to perform a moral act at the point of a gun.

Hidden behind the moral platitudes of the welfare state supporters is the fact that they have created the only entity that can legally use force to remove one person's property and give to another-- their own government.

Some supporters would say-- "but that elected government is the arm of the people."

Unfortunately that is not the case-- elected government is the arm of some of the people. This is especially evident when you have a presidential candidate loudly lamenting the ills of society while promising that those suffering will not have to lift a finger to better their condition. Essentially Obama promised his supporters that by voting for him they could vote the money out of the rich's pockets (rich meaning anyone earning $200,000) and in return for their vote they'd get free money (a tax-break), health-care, and their mortgage paid off to boot.

He gets 53% of the vote, the tax code changes, and the "rich" pay up.

This type of collectivism, while backed up with a very wide range of moral propaganda is actually the recipe for an immoral society, one where individuals are no longer recognized as such, but just insignificant pieces of a broader "community", where an individual's property rights are negated for the "common good." Of course "community" and "common good" are only abstractions--your perfect society is not mine (I would much rather live in a rich country with a high inequality of income than in a poor country where everyone is equally destitute), what you may perceive as done for the common good, I may perceive as exactly the opposite.

What arises from this type of society is exactly what we see today-- one group (the "rich") feel resentment that their hard earned money is being forcibly removed from them to give to those who have not earned it. The other group ("the poor") feel entitled to that money, become dependent on it, and lose an incentive to work and improve themselves to better their condition. Both groups stop attempting to help one another for now it is the State's job to do so. Forced by the state to perform charity, both parties reject voluntarily doing so (Obama's new tax code is actively designed to discourage charity by the rich by lowering the tax write-offs they can receive).

I am not arguing for anarchy here. We need a strong limited government that protects property rights, enforces contracts through its legal system, and defends the homeland without violating its citizens civil liberties and without intervening in the affairs of other nations.

Statism is the antithesis of the type of government I propose. The only governmental system that I know of which fits this model is a Constitutional Republic which practices laissez-fair Capitalism...

...oh that's exactly what the founders of our nation proposed as well.

[akihabro]

My thousand words. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cnUe2D6K76g/SHl-39_1VkI/AAAAAAAAAy4/Yd2CJj9mikw/s400/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[Kludge]

Voluntary socialism between producers is nifty.

[Conza88]

Voluntary socialism between producers is nifty.

It's not socialism. And thus it is nifty.