A black economist tells it like it is:



http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1034

quote:

---

Minority View

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.

Walter E. Williams, an economist at George Mason University, is syndicated nationally by Creators Syndicate. Visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

---

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=1034

quote:

Originally posted by redrepublican:
libs are sociaistic! (i sense kissofshadows and purpledog baseless accusations coming. )

English, MF, do you sprach it?

quote:

---

The purpose of my original post, if you had paid attention, was not to highlight my intelligence. It was to point out the fundamental flaw in another poster's logic that, just because an individual who may be considered a genius supports a concept, doesn't mean it's wise, practical, or correct in theory.

---

I recognize that it was and I would definitely agree with you that just because somebody is considered a genius doesn't inherently make their opinion anymore valid than yours or mine. I may look to their opinion first, especially if they are considered an expert in a particular field, but again inherently their logic isn't any better then yours or mine. My initial response was precautionary, it was there just to make sure you weren't trying to flaunt (no malice was intended); over the net it’s not as easy to tell what is sarcasm and what isn't.

quote:

---

The fatal flaw in your argument is that one cannot print alternative forms of money (with a few exceptions, like arcade tokens). Therefore, the government has a monopoly on money as a means of exchange.

---

The money was more or less an example, but not the only example. But this is not to saw your argument isn't flawed.
One can definitely print alternative forms of money, I haven't seen a law that says you can’t (I could be wrong on this, so if you do know of a law please point it out.) But back to fact there are people who are printing alternative currency, there was a news special not to long ago about this. There are people who actually use other forms of currency, which a company prints. I really don't remember the exact specifics, but a bunch of towns all over the country are using this currency that a company created that is backed by gold. The more pragmatic problem of people printing money is the whether the money actually is worth anything.

quote:

---

Then they are enforcing a contract against at least some people who have not signed that contract i.e. taken part in modern society, which is no different than what third-world dictators do.

---

Whether the contract is physically signed really doesn't matter. A contract is present from your birth; your parents do it for you when they choose your residency. They are exercising their right of custody and can make contracts for you.
No other action is required of you to uphold the agreement and you may end it at anytime, by departing or renouncing your citizenship; Taxes are not theft due to this. By taking up residency, voting and just about every other action in this nation, you therefore solidify your contract.

quote:

---

Oh, that we can agree upon! In other words, the men with guns is all that matters in the end.

---

Of course on a physical level obviously, I'm not going to get into a theological/metaphysical discussion on this because obviously it doesn't have much importance to this discussion, which I'm sure you will agree.
Nor would I say I necessarily agree with them.

quote:

---

Yes, they are. Let me buy a new stereo and charge your credit card, and we'll see what you think then.

---

Different situation. Refer to what I labeled as 2 and combine it with this and you might find something interesting. If you need clarification let me know.

quote:

---

Actually, it's considerably more than that, when you factor in what goes to the states

---

It’s really not though, go to the library of congress, the information is there. Take for example 1992, the combined expenditures at the federal, state and local level for all one way transfers of wealth based programs came to $289.9 billion of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion, or 12%. It has fluctuated between 12 and 18 percent from 1992 to 2003.

quote:

---

Agreed. However, one difference is that a pacifist reaps the benefit of military protection as much as a much as the most gung-ho, pro-military citizen.

---

2But that still doesn't change the fact that they may not want the rewards. However misguided there views could be, they could still see the benefits as not actually benefits and therefore this would still be consider stealing with your thinking.

quote:

---

This is not the case with many/most social services, which only apply to certain groups.

---

But they can be seen as benefiting society as whole. Hopefully you get what I mean by this but if you want me to elaborate further just ask (this isn't intended to be a jab at you).

quote:

---

Nobody is trying to dazzle you, check your ****ing ego pal, you might get a nosebleed.

---

The purpose of my original post, if you had paid attention, was not to highlight my intelligence. It was to point out the fundamental flaw in another poster's logic that, just because an individual who may be considered a genius supports a concept, doesn't mean it's wise, practical, or correct in theory.

quote:

---

For the sake of this particular case we will use America as an example. The problem is as an American you are bound by your social contract to pay the government. Hell by simply using the money the government printed you are agreeing to the social contract. There a three simple ways you can deal with this, 1. Emigrate 2. deal with it and hopefully try to amend it 3.revolt or 4. simply violate it. But as it stands it is not THEFT.

---

The fatal flaw in your argument is that one cannot print alternative forms of money (with a few exceptions, like arcade tokens). Therefore, the government has a monopoly on money as a means of exchange. Furthermore, government does theoretically tax bartered goods, so even if one does not agree to the social contract, one is still stolen from. THAT'S the part that is really stealing.

quote:

---

So what!! They are enforcing a contract, which you are hypothetically breaking. Even if we reduced the government down simply not allowing fraud they will still "send masked bandits with guns."

---

Then they are enforcing a contract against at least some people who have not signed that contract i.e. taken part in modern society, which is no different than what third-world dictators do.

quote:

---

Men with guns are the basis of enforcement in any modern social system.

---

Oh, that we can agree upon! In other words, the men with guns is all that matters in the end.

quote:

---

Nope, they really aren't.

---

Yes, they are. Let me buy a new stereo and charge your credit card, and we'll see what you think then.

quote:

---

Bull****, the programs you are talking about are only equivalent to about 12%-18% of state and federal income,(this is including Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, and so on ) this is hardly the "lions share."

---

Actually, it's considerably more than that, when you factor in what goes to the states. But, even as far as that "12%-18%", much of it I'm ineligible for, for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, I should not be obligated to pay it.

quote:

---

Besides the majority of the "lions share" goes to the military which is something we both want the “lions share” to go to. But by your standard of judging which taxes are theft, certainly a pacifist could deem the money that goes to the military as theft.

---

Agreed. However, one difference is that a pacifist reaps the benefit of military protection as much as a much as the most gung-ho, pro-military citizen. This is not the case with many/most social services, which only apply to certain groups. If these services were usable by anybody and everybody, then, you're right, it would be harder to make the argument that 'taxes are stealing'.


With respect to a point you made earlier about what to do about taxes, one idea I've long proposed is a tax system where individual filers get to choose what services, relatively broadly, get funded by their tax dollars. I think this is idea is significant enough to deserve its own thread, which I will start shortly.

quote:

---

DJMagnusa, once again, you try to dazzle me with bu!!sh!t.

---

Nobody is trying to dazzle you, check your ****ing ego pal, you might get a nosebleed.

quote:

---

Apparently, Stanford-Binet was either the first IQ test you found in a Google search, or it's the only test you knew of offhand. If you had known what you are talking about, you'd know that the Wechsler Test is the most common individual test, not the Standford-Binet.

---

Let me clarify then, the Stanford-Binet is the most common for identifying people above the 99 percentile (which you claim to be). My statement of "I'm assuming that you probably meant the Stanford-Binet test seeing as that is the most common" is partially incorrect I should have phrased it "seeing as that is one of the most common." Also the higher number made me think Standford-binet test. The Wechsler Test is certainly a common test but is not the most common, technically you could consider the SAT or the ACT as the most common because there is a conversion for it. Maybe the Wechsler Test is the test you found on google or maybe it was the only test you knew offhand. But seeing as this statement has absolutely no reference point, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, which should be equally extended in my case because you have little to no evidence to make such a claim as "Apparently, Stanford-Binet was either the first IQ test you found in a Google search, or it's the only test you knew of offhand."

quote:

---

Taking property or life from others without permission is a form of theft.

---

For the sake of this particular case we will use America as an example. The problem is as an American you are bound by your social contract to pay the government. Hell by simply using the money the government printed you are agreeing to the social contract. There a three simple ways you can deal with this, 1. Emigrate 2. deal with it and hopefully try to amend it 3.revolt or 4. simply violate it. But as it stands it is not THEFT.

quote:

---

Especially seeing as the government will send masked bandits with guns if you don't pay.

---

So what!! They are enforcing a contract, which you are hypothetically breaking. Even if we reduced the government down simply not allowing fraud they will still "send masked bandits with guns." Men with guns are the basis of enforcement in any modern social system.

quote:

---

There is no difference. Yeah, sure government MIGHT give you some services in return, but did you ask for those services? Are they the services you would have chosen to spend that money on? Are they services you need? Are they relevant to you? If not, then taxes are truly theft.

---

Nope, they really aren't.

quote:

---

But the lion's share of government either doesn't apply to me (I'm not ethnic, female, or an illegal alien), so I don't qualify for most services, and probably never will for the aforementioned reasons.

---

Bull****, the programs you are talking about are only equivalent to about 12%-18% of state and federal income,(this is including Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, and so on ) this is hardly the "lions share."
Besides the majority of the "lions share" goes to the military which is something we both want the “lions share” to go to. But by your standard of judging which taxes are theft, certainly a pacifist could deem the money that goes to the military as theft. In fact you would have to deem a pacifists claim of theft as valid or else your claims of theft would fall flat.

Man A makes $85,000 a year, before taxes.

Man B makes $18,230 a year, before taxes.

Government One takes three sets of taxes, city, county, school taxes, and "transfers" it to Man B's children, who then get to go to school "for free."

HOW IS THIS FREE?

and more importantly,

HOW IS THIS EQUAL?

DJMagnusa, once again, you try to dazzle me with bu!!sh!t. Apparently, Stanford-Binet was either the first IQ test you found in a Google search, or it's the only test you knew of offhand. If you had known what you are talking about, you'd know that the Wechsler Test is the most common individual test, not the Standford-Binet.

At any rate, since you ask, I believe it was either the California Achievement Test which is what I took. This are a group test like S-B.

Fundamentally, you are correct though, which is why I take any kind of intelligence "test" with half a shaker of salt. I do remember that the CAT results - at least when I took it - correlated to unusually extreme scores, resulting in somewhat inflated numbers. This was not the fault of the test itself, IIRC, but the conversion system. Nonetheless, I was told by my counselors that I was in the top 0.05%. Whatever that corresponds to in IQ, I don't know, and don't really care. Intelligence tests are only relevant when you're pretty much a kid anyway, and I'm more than a decade out of that.

quote:

---

Don't you believe the whole "taxation is theft" argument is a little bit beneath a "Highest genius," seeing as a mere highly gifted person, such as myself, can obviously find the flaws in about two seconds.

---

Taking property or life from others without permission is a form of theft. It doesn't matter if a government does it or a masked bandit with a gun. Especially seeing as the government will send masked bandits with guns if you don't pay. There is no difference. Yeah, sure government MIGHT give you some services in return, but did you ask for those services? Are they the services you would have chosen to spend that money on? Are they services you need? Are they relevant to you? If not, then taxes are truly theft.

BTW, don't get the idea that I don't think taxes are completely unnecessary; I enjoy paved roads, safe skies, and a strong military. These are all things I would happily spend a significant portion of my paycheck to get. But the lion's share of government either doesn't apply to me (I'm not ethnic, female, or an illegal alien), so I don't qualify for most services, and probably never will for the aforementioned reasons.

quote:

---

FYI, I'm technically considered a genius (IQ=180), and I'm a capitalist. I guess it must be the right thing if a genius supports it...

---

An IQ of 180 is above Genius, it is classified as "Highest genius" and I highly doubt you are that. One reason I question this is number one you did not mention which IQ test you took, which is generally a sign of a childish attempt. I'm assuming that you probably meant the Stanford-Binet test seeing as that is the most common. My second reason for questioning your statement is you don't know the proper title that is given to an IQ of 180, if you remembered your score you should remember the classifaction. The third reason is the biggest one; I agree you probably are gifted, but a score above 160 is (only .01 of the population has a score of 160) is extremely extremely unlikely and your posts have yet to prove as extremely extremely exceptional.
All in all I hope this was just an attempt at humor.

quote:

---

because the mechanism of operation of socialism/communism is stealing from those who have and giving it to those who don't,

---

Don't you believe the whole "taxation is theft" argument is a little bit beneath a "Highest genius," seeing as a mere highly gifted person, such as myself, can obviously find the flaws in about two seconds.

[This message was edited by djmagnusa on August 03, 2004 at 05:01 AM.]

You're still missing the point about people being equal: when I say equal I'm not talking about "the same." Obviously, everybody has different personal attributes, personalities, intellects, interests. But everyone deserves to be treated with the same RESPECT and get the same opportunities to live life in peace. Capitalism also brings up these themes, what with the thing about "equality of opportunity" and the self-made man. Socialism goes farther and actually mobilizes the ideas. As far as I know, it's not about "holding anyone back," just making the playing field level so that nobody has advantages or disadvantages compared to other people.

And Dorothy Day isn't just a "hero" of socialism...she's up for sainthood within the Catholic Church, which is precisely what she didn't want. Ironic...

Sorry, my bad with regard to Ms. Day. However, it changes nothing. I really don't care who the "heroes" of socialism are.

Government making people into something they're not - equal - does little to change the fundamental inequities in life. Some people are smarter than others; some people more gifted in various areas than others. Does that mean we must hold all the gifted people back for the sake of the lowest common denominator? That is, in essence, the fundamental flaw in socialism as a concept, let alone as a practice - we must all be equal to the lowest common denominator.

FYI, I'm technically considered a genius (IQ=180), and I'm a capitalist. I guess it must be the right thing if a genius supports it...

You know, before you respond with a post bashing someone's heroes, you should bother to find out who they were. I said DOROTHY Day, not Doris. DOROTHY DAY was a atheist socialist who converted to Catholicism and started the Catholic Worker movement, dedicated to peaceful social change and aid to the impoverished. Catholic Workers (with many houses today, I believe more than 50) live in voluntary poverty, which means that people who dedicate their lives to this movement give up comforts to live among the people they serve. They protest, they provide transitional housing for the homeless, they feed, clothe and supply with basic living needs thousands of people, and most importantly, they befriend the people they are helping. All of this because these amazing people - really, some of the most amazing people I've ever met -believe in Dorothy Day's idea that all people deserve to be treated the same, because we share that fundamental human dignity. Where did this idea come from? Socialism. *Gasp!* Socialism has done something positive in the world!

Check out the Catholic Worker newspaper (it costs a penny, just like it did when it was started in the twenties/thirties) or the website. Next time, before you call someone's thinking "stupid," take a second to educate yourself.

For the record, I was merely pointing out that Eugene O'Neill was, in fact, a genius.

And Charles Lindbergh was a fan of Hitler. Doesn't mean he was right.

Really, that is some of the most incredibly stupid thinking humanly possible. This is not meant to be insulting, but think about it: What kind of mindless, thoughtless lemming would blindly follow any ideology simply because some celebrity, be it Doris Day or Arnold Schwarzenegger, says so?

It's amazing how much of people's thoughts and feelings are literally, literally OWNED by celebrities.

I'm not saying that it will ever work the way it was originally conceived. I'm saying that putting into practice some of the fundamental ideas would be an "awesome" thing. But excuse me for thinking that all people deserve the same opportunities, regardless of race, age, ideals, or economic status. Because (FYI) that's at the core of socialism: that the playing field deserves to be level because everyone has a fundamental human dignity. That's the cool part. I must stress again, read up on some of the thinkers that were influenced or were socialists: Dorothy Day I already mentioned, Eugene O'Neill...

I am fairly familiar with socialism, both in theory and practice: It's goal is to spread misery equally. The fundamental problem is that socialism requires oppression and tyranny to work, because the mechanism of operation of socialism/communism is stealing from those who have and giving it to those who don't, who are often undeserving of whatever it is. There is nothing "awesome" about steal and oppression.

I'm basically a socialist myself, and I'm feeling very threated...just kidding!

Socialism is NOT A BAD THING in itself, the idea that everyone is equal and deserves equal say and rights. The fundamental respect of human dignity is there, and it's cool. In fact, countries like Sweden (it is Sweden, right?) incorporate it into their system (Democratic Socialism) and people there have free health care and a bunch of resources open to the public that America privatizes.

Plus Dorothy Day was a socialist...

It's the application of the idea that quickly becomes the "some are more equal" thing. People are inherently selfish, I think, and don't tend to like given up anything. Plus power up for grabs seems to be pretty irresistable. Read up a little more on the AWESOME parts about socialism before you go any further and risk never learning some cool social philosophy.

So true, Joey, so true. Socialists have caused nothing but problems, particularly the most extreme version: Communism.

quote:

---

That book is a nice little peice of propganda. The story is inflated to fit Sinclair's points, and the ending of the book degrades into blatant BS.

---

It may be on Sinclair's points, but it does touch upon the main points of socialism, and if you are one of those people that didn't know anything about (or didn't want to know anything about socialism), it does give a person an idea about how socialism started and how it grew.

Nazi in German is short for Nationalsozialistische deutsche. Take that for what you may.

quote:

---

I thought reading The Jungle by Upton Sinclair was really good. It doesn't talk about current socialism, but it hits upon a lot of its points. (By the way, if you're into politics and govt. then you'll like it.)

---

That book is a nice little peice of propganda. The story is inflated to fit Sinclair's points, and the ending of the book degrades into blatant BS.

My favorite part was when Sinclair praises the socialist parties gaining stregnth in other countries. Particularly Germany. Anyone know what NAZI stands for in German?