Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.
Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.
This is why socialism is evil.
It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.
Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?
I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."
The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
4 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;....The source of all human evil, as we have come to know it, is the result of idealism.... It does not matter whether the ism is socialism, or sexism, or racism, or capitalism... Philosophers, such as Plato seem to have believed the perfect form of society could create the perfect individual... That is false... People are people, and no matter what is the form, whether it be religion, or government, or economy; it is only a form, while people as people tend to remain what they have always been... Now; we do progress through forms, and when people have a new form, or a form new to them it often brings out the best in them as people...Christianity as a new form brought out a lot of admirable qualities in people...Newlyweds are often on their best behavior...The Americans after the revolution were often far sighted and brave and intelligent...But people like Jefferson recognized the value of forms, and they are in the Declaration of Independence for that very reason, that when old forms become too difficult to endure we must change them.... Now; there are no imaginary cases, as one English Jurist said.... You can keep your hypotheticals...Socialism as a reality has been universal to all of mankind... How well did it work???? We all owe our lives to socialism before it had a name... Just as in your family, that socialism was natural, in that it grew out of the navel, (natal--Natural) -ones common heritage...Try to think of all the problems that might arise from trying to impose this natural form of relationship on people with no natural affection for each other...I mean; we have the example of a sort of perfection of society, and from that example, if we can define an ideal of human relationships, is it possible that we will be able to create the perfect society, or economy, or government from an ideal of these forms??? You cannot make the perfect house out of an ideal of the perfect house... Instead, you can create A house from an ideal of a house... No one has the ideal marriage, even if they can concieve of the ideal marriage... What they get is what they get, and how they deal with it and adapt is the story of their lives....You know all forms of socialism in your life, and one big reason we hate socialism is that it is the socialism of poverty, and because the poverty of our socialism is what affords the rich their wealth... We drive on crumbling roads together so they can fly in private jets...We languish in Emergency rooms so they can have the best of treament...Try to resist the desire to kick straw dogs... If we ever have a real sort of socialism in this land it will be out of necessity, and then it will be a growth out of relationships we have come to consider natural, like nationalism... We cannot create the perfect society out of an ideal, nor can we create the perfect citizen... Rather, we should always seek for our forms only forms that serve our relationships, and what we have now do not serve us... Who cares about wealth and distribution??? Wealth and money are only forms... Look at the human beings behind the forms... Are they happy??? Do they have enough??? Is there any chance they will be happy under the current form??? If we need to change the forms of our economy, and government, it should not be over anyones dead body... Instead, read some philosophy, and read your Declaration of Independence... And try to realize what people are saying when they say form of, or reform, or formula... We use the word, and are blind to its implications...No one should suffer a form that does not work... The cure to a failed form is not found by feeding more lives into it to be mauled, or destroyed ... The cure to a failed form is a new form; and just don't expect change to be easy on people, or that a new form will ever cure people of being people... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Walter,
What a great article. Too bad this type of thinking has left our halls of congress...
sweeney tl dr but, I assume you disagree.
Look at what Davy Crockett had to say...
http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html
"" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. "
Comment: #2
Posted by: FreeEnterprise
Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Walter, you're wonderful.
Comment: #3
Posted by: wade mathias
Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Great article . America voted for socialism in the last election whether they know it or not.
I always enjoy your articles.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Margaret Smith
Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
