Friday, October 31, 2008

Socialism

The S-word has been thrown around a great deal in the last few weeks. I even saw McCain campaign sign-wavers holding signs warning against Obama's Socialist plan for America. So who is the Socialist?

So is Obama a Socialist? Well, yeah but so is John McCain. It should be understood that the Constitution of the United States was specifically written to discourage collectivism in general.

Originally taxes on persons was to be apportioned (all the same) and welfare was to be general (shared by all) which is to mean that no one is taxed more than anyone else and government treated people as individuals, and not belonging to people groups. To give money or benefit to a select group would be unthinkable to our founding fathers. They understood that government cannot provide a service. It cannot deliver a good or supply a resource. To even attempt this, government must first take from the productive efforts of some by force.

If you want to call Obama a Socialist then that's fine but to pretend that John McCain and his support of farm subsidies is a more just and moral way of spreading the wealth is being ignorant.

I reject Socialism only on the premise that I don't have a right to your property, your creative energy, or your time. It is not mine, it is yours. To expect that these things that belong to you should be taken from you by force and given to me is simply using the government to do what would be illegal if I acted alone. Because I see it as theft, I reject it on moral grounds.

Hell, if you want my stuff just ask for it and at least come by and get it yourself. I may even help you load it in your vehicle.

3 comments:

Esther said...

Well said. That's exactly why I object to socialism also.

By the way, you wouldn't happen to have a laptop I could take would you? ;oP

robert the grump said...

I'm all for the wealthiest among us paying the most. Living in this country benefits the wealthy in too many ways to list, so they owe the rest of us. Either that, or quit giving them advantages based on wealth and influence.

If that's socialism, tough. I prefer that type of socialist wealth distribution over McCain/Bush's version where the money is redistributed to the rich.

I might change my mind if I win the lottery. Just kidding. I'd pay my share without the Republican whining.

Tracy said...

Grump, your point is 100% spot-on...in that you said it benefits the rich too much...the key is to remove the benefits...no one should be institutionally protected to succeed...anymore than property be taken by force. They're both unAmerican.

I can see why people would want to level the field with socialism if the benefits were going to persist...I say remove both.