Call it socialism, call it wealth redistribution, call it welfare, call it “we just want to spread it around a little, we think it’s better for everyone that way”, its evil.

Allow me to digress just a bit with several examples and I’ll circle back and show you why I believe it’s not just bad, it’s evil.

Keep this phrase in mind: “Every time someone gets something for nothing, someone else had to get nothing for something.”

Example 1: Taxes

In a graduated income tax system such as ours, the highest earners and producers pay the highest rate, while the lowest earners pay the lowest rate. And the non-producers often pay less than nothing as they actually receive payment from the collected taxes. This is commonly known as welfare, where people do not earn, yet still receive.

In this example, the welfare recipient gets something for nothing, while the top earner (you could even argue the mid-range earner also) pays for them, essentially getting nothing for something.

Who loses?

Hold that thought, let’s continue.

Example 2: Labor Unions

In a typical Labor union the workers of a company have united together to become a single body, the union.And all contracts, payment and otherwise, are negotiated with the entire body, instead of the individual worker. This claims the union, gives the worker greater bargaining power when it comes to negotiating said contracts.

Here’s what else it does: It gives the worker higher wages (and benefits) than they could get on their own and scheduled pay raises not based on merit but on union membership - something for nothing. And the Company itself, by not getting higher producers for the higher wages and compensation, has now gotten nothing for something.

Who loses?

Don’t answer yet, there’s more

Example 3: Children’s “self esteem” classes

Many public, and even private, schools have instituted programs to help the kids build self esteem. They do things like give each kid a prize for “effort” regardless of how qualified the effort actually is. The sports teams give everyone a trophy so the losers don’t get their “self esteem” hurt. They are careful not to reward the high-achieving kids too gratuitously for fear of hurting the other kids “self esteem”. It all makes sense, they don’t want kids who under achieve to feel bad.

Here’s what really happens: the kids who didn’t win, but still got trophies – the kids who crammed a sloppy half-effort entry to the science fair but still got a prize for “effort” – the kids who are told they’re doing a great job as to not hurt their feelings – all they really got was, you guessed it: something for nothing - accolades, prizes, trophy, even grades – all unearned.

Who got nothing for something? The team that won, the kids that achieve and get a silent grade as to not upset the others; all get unrewarded, maybe even unappreciated, effort.

Who loses?

I know I know, hang in there we’re almost done

Example 4: Friendship

This is a real example, from a real person, in a real school.

A girl, 12, we’ll call her Girl A, told Girl B: “I just don’t want to be friends with you, we have nothing in common…etc.” Well Girl B went home, told her parents, who called the school, next day teacher says to Girl A: “you have to be friends with Girl B”.

So hurray right? Girl B is now accepted and has a friend? Wrong.

Something for nothing, a friend she didn’t “earn”

Girl B now gets nothing for her something, she now has to endure hanging out with someone she really doesn’t like. (Although this is likely the most real life-preparing experience she’ll have while in school)

I ask again: Who loses?

Now, finally, let’s summarize.

In example 4, who loses? Girl A, who has to hang out with a girl she doesn’t like? Nope. Sure she has to endure a hardship, but who really loses?

Girl B.

Why? Because Girl B is being told, and shown that she doesn’t need to earn friends, or even make friends, that they’ll be made for her. She gets to live with the realization that because she couldn’t make her own friends, one had to be given to her.

Who loses in example 3? The achieving kids who don’t get the recognition they deserve? No again.

It’s the kids who get the praise and rewards they didn’t deserve that lose. They are being taught that they are worthy and deserving of such rewards without earning them. How prepared for life will they be with that lesson?

How about example 2? Sure the union wages and compensation hurt the company’s bottom line (ahem, GM?) but is that the real loser – nope.

Each union member who is told “you can’t get a raise, or earn this salary on your own, you need us to do it for you” loses big time. Because that’s exactly what they believe, they learn that they can’t earn such a raise themselves, and thus never will.

Finally, in example one, the high producer and wage earner, who is penalized at a greater rate of taxation for his achievement – is he the loser? Not even close. He’s used to overcoming obstacles and facing challenges, he’ll find a way to deal with the taxation.

The welfare recipient however, may never learn how to care for himself. He’s been convinced that, for one reason or another, he can’t. Or that someone else won’t let him.

All of these examples are one form of Socialism, here’s why they are all evil:

- Girl B could have made friends on her own, but she may never know. She expects someone else to do it for her. Her desire to make friends has been taken.

- All those kids who were “taught” self esteem could have earned it themselves, if only given the chance. But by giving it to them, you take their ability to earn it. You’ve literally stolen their entire future potential right out of them.

- Each worker could have actually earned his own pay raise, he could have learned to work harder, maybe even get more education and climb the ladder. But by telling he can’t , or doesn’t need to, you’ve stolen that potential from him.

- By paying someone to not work, you’re stealing their very motive engine. You’re buying their soul one cent at a time, purchasing their life, and enslaving them.

And that, my friends, is why Socialism, in any form, is evil.

DMobile Philosophy, Values socialism

Normally I just ramble thoughts off from my own mind. Today I present an excellent column from Phil Kerpen….enjoy:

Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises

mzev44 Economic, Patriotism, Philosophy, Political

I was watching an interview with Tony Danza on the Mike Huckabee show, (Please note, I am not a big fan of either) and Mike asked Tony about the stimulus bill.  His answer, very similar to answers I get from non-cons (a non-conservative, i.e.: moderate or liberal), was this: “I don’t necessarily think, you know, intellectually, that it’s the best plan, but I really want it to work.  Can’t we all just stop the bickering and get behind it?”

What exactly was he trying to say? That even though it’s the wrong plan that if we all “want” it to work it’ll be ok?

If you hire me to fix your car, and I put peanut butter in the transmission and replace some key engine parts with legos then tell you “well the other mechanics and I really want this plan to work, can’t you just get behind it?”  Is that going to make your car run?

Which brings us to:

Fundamental liberal thought flaw #1: “Wanting something to work, regardless of its actual merits, will somehow make it work” and this subsequent extrapolation: “Questioning the merits of something will likely cause it to fail, while massive public support of something will definitely cause it to succeed”

Also repeated by Mr. Danza, as well as countless media outlets, is how hard it is for a new president in his first 30 days, and how Mr. Obama didn’t ask for this recession, he inherited the greatest challenge of any modern president.

So…we should be forgiving and “cut him some slack” because it’s really, really hard to be president?  Um, no.  When you’re the President; you need to find a way to deal with it.

Again, if I’m fixing your car and I break something instead of fix it and my coworker comes to you and says “look, we just hired him and you know how hard the first month at a new job can be.  And besides, your car problem is a really hard one; he didn’t ask for it, you just showed up and expected it to be fixed.” Are you going to accept that answer?  I doubt it.  So why should we accept that answer about the President?  Unless you ascribe to Fundamental liberal thought flaw #2.

Fundamental liberal thought flaw #2: “The higher the difficulty of something, the more acceptable it is to give an excuse for failure, based on that difficulty”. There are examples of this all though society: “but it’s hard to get a better job”, “but it’s hard to pay my bills”, “but its hard to pay a full price mortgage”, “but it’s hard to start a business”, “but it’s hard to stay married” and more, which leads to this summarization: “If something is hard, that alone is reason enough for failing or not even trying”

We could go on and name many more, and we will, later.

DMobile Philosophy, Values Liberal, Progressive