The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Socialism is Acceptable

"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
- Abraham Lincoln

Introduction

Socialism and Democratic socialism, wealth redistribution, income inequality, tax the rich, occupy Wall Street, free education, free healthcare, etc. is all the same principle – socialism or "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." To implement these items requires that you take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). And it is accomplished through Government intimidation and coercion through threats of fines and/or imprisonment. The government decides what and how much to take, and what and how much to give. This is not the same as taxes, as taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some. Therefore, with socialism, the government is the master of all the citizens, and the citizens are the serfs of the government.

The Socialism model requires that all decisions being made would be, directly or indirectly, made collectively and be applied equally to all members of the society. This would require that a government decide (either through direct democracy or indirect representative democracy) what is best for its citizens (and we all know how good bureaucrats are at deciding what’s best for us), as well as central planning by the government on economic decisions (which has never worked throughout history).

Socialism is immoral as it requires that the will of the majority be imposed upon the minority. If the socialist majority decides that abortion, or alcohol consumption, or drug and marijuana usage, or gambling, or vegetarianism, etc. is wrong and not to be allowed, then those that disagree must acquiesce and accept their decision. There is no freedom or liberty to choose what you believe is right. This freedom to choose is essential to our human rights. As such, socialism is a violation of human rights.

Socialism is also contrary to human nature. Mankind, as well as all other animal life, is competitive. We and animals compete for food, shelter, and mates as well as for other reasons. We also compete to improve our and our family’s lot in life. Socialism requires that we repress this competitiveness and act in the best interests of all. Human nature is that part of our psyche that is a result of millions of years of evolution. It is a basic part of all humans. We must all acknowledge our human nature and account for it in our dealings with others, as well as in the creation and administration of social policy. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure. And failure is what is inevitable if you do not account for human nature. Socialism denies or disparages, and sometimes thinks it can eliminate the competitive instinct of human nature. For someone to deny human nature, or not acknowledge human nature, is foolish, and you should not pay attention to fools.

It is also true that socialism never works in the long run. There is simply not enough earned by those that work and toil to support those that do not work and toil. It stifles the incentive to work and toil and encourages non-work and non-toil. The incentive to invent, innovate, and expand a business decreases as the government takes more of the fruits of your sweat and toil. The economy will stagnate, falter, then collapse the longer socialism is in-place. This is readily apparent in Europe in the last half of the 20^th century, and the first part of the 21^st century, as many European nations economies are faltering and collapsing due to the weight of socialism. The end results of socialism can be seen in South and Central America as economies have collapsed and the citizens are impoverished and destitute (Venezuela is an excellent example of the end result of socialism).

Socialism can also lead to evil. Often, socialism requires the forceful imposition of its policies. A force that can be injuriousness and/or deadly. If you oppose socialist policies, or in a minority group within socialism, you will be repressed, fined, and perhaps imprisoned for your acts or speech of your conscience. One need only look at the history of the 20^th century to confirm this. Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Imperial Japan had socialism as the basis of their economic policies as explained in my article “Nazism & Fascism”. The history of these ideologies, which were based on socialism, is mass deaths and murders, starvation, communicable diseases, imprisonment, economic deprivation, and suppression of human rights. The very definition of evil.

Therefore, to implement socialism also requires that the government restrict the freedoms and liberties of its citizens, as well as violate the human rights of its peoples. So, when you hear someone advocating any form of socialism it is to advocate the serfdom of its people, and this should be resisted always and in all places.

Socialism is Immoral

I would spotlight the immorality of socialism with the following examples. Socialism entails the sharing of economic products and services, and the labor required to produce them, amongst all the parties involved in the socialistic system. Whereas capitalism rewards only those that produce and those that need the products and services. Some sharing examples that illuminate socialism vs capitalism are:

Fictitious Immoralities

The (fictitious) examples in this section of the sharing of possessions that you have earned or obtained are humorously illuminative.

Dad teaching daughter in college what socialism is

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hungover.'

Her wise father then asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly, that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the capitalist’s philosophy.'

Team Sports Salaries

A National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) announcement:

The NWSL, after a thorough review of the salary structure of its players, has decided to implement an “Equal Work for Equal Pay” salary structure. Henceforth, all the players on all the teams will be paid the same salary. A spokesperson for the NWSL stated that “since all the players are working equally, they should all be paid the same, regardless of their individual performance or value to the team”. They continued “We believe that this is only fair in today’s society of democratic socialism that everybody who is performing the same work should be paid the same salary”.

Several of the NWSL soccer stars we contacted commented that they thought this was unfair as they believed as they were more important to the success of a team they should be paid more. However, a poll of the women’s soccer team members found overwhelming support for this new policy by a 70% to 30% margin. Given this majority, the NWSL spokesperson stated that in a democratic society the will of the majority should be supported and implemented.

I was talking to a friend's little girl...

I was talking to a friend’s little girl, and she said she wanted to be President someday. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were to be the President, what is the first thing you would do?’

She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’ ‘Wow - what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my sidewalks and driveway, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or housing.’

She thought that over for a few seconds ‘cause she’s only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

And I said, 'Welcome to the capitalist’s philosophy.'

And then the fight began …

A small college dorm thought it would be nice to share their possessions with the less fortunate amongst themselves. After all, “Share and Share Alike” was caring and concern for all the members of the dorm. They decided to pool their Cars, Dorm Cleaning responsibilities, Food and Beverages, and Clothing, as well as their Alcohol and/or Drugs.

Several weeks into this experiment they noticed that the food and beverages were constantly in short supply. A few of their dormers were known munchers and guzzlers but they seemed to not be contributing to the restocking of the food and beverages. The others had stopped contributing to the food and beverages as they were not consuming as much as the other dorm members. They held a meeting to discuss this situation. And then the fight began … who would be paying, who would be shopping, how much consumption would be allowed, etc.?

A month or so into the experiment they noticed that the cars were generally unavailable when someone needed them. They also noticed that the gas tank was generally near empty. A couple of dents and dings on the car were also noticed. When one of the cars require minor repairs the held a meeting to discuss this situation. And then the fight began … who would be paying for the gas and repairs, who was responsible for the dents and dings and should they be responsible for fixing them, who would be responsible for filling the gas, how often and how many miles would each person be allowed to drive the cars, etc.?

A few months into the experiment they noticed that the dorm was beginning to be a mess and filthy. The bathrooms and showers were not being cleaned regularly, trash was not being emptied when it was full, dishes, glasses, and utensils were not being washed, and numerous personal possessions were lying around all over the dorm. They held a meeting on how to address this situation. And then the fight began … who and when would be responsible for cleaning the bathrooms and showers and what standard of cleaning was minimally required, who and when would be responsible for emptying the trash, who and how often would be responsible for cleaning the dishes, and what would be the rules for personal possessions in the common areas, etc.?

After several incidents of clothing that were borrowed were returned dirty, stained, and even torn, and, in addition, several dorm members were complaining that their clothing was missing or unavailable when they wanted to wear them, a meeting was held in order to rectify this situation. And then the fight began … who would be responsible for cleaning or paying for the cleaning of the dirty and stained clothing, who would be responsible for replacing or repairing torn clothing, how often and for how long could you borrow the clothing, what clothing was allowed to be borrowed, and did you need permission from the owner to borrow the clothing, etc.?

It was also discovered that several of the dorm members were hiding their stash of booze and drugs and not sharing them with the other dorm members. A meeting was held to discuss this situation, and then the fight began … Who was to pay, who was to obtain, how much each dorm member was allowed to consume, and if the dorm members who did not utilize booze and/or drugs would have to contribute and how much, etc.?

Finally, after a few months, several of the dorm members began to hook up and share sexual intimacy. Several of the dorm members, both male and female, were considered unattractive or undesirable, and as a result, felt lonely and depressed. A meeting was held to discuss resolving this situation. And then the fight really began … (enough said).

As can be seen from the above the collective sharing of socialism leads to many disparities, inequities, and conflicts. Sharing between individuals should be done by an individual to an individual, one-on-one. To do otherwise results in unfairness and disputes.

Factual Immoralities

Health Care for All

“Health Care for All” is another example of the immorality of socialism, for it is a path that inevitably leads to rationing and/or price controls. In a Utopia health care for all is an excellent idea, but in the real world, there is always a cost and benefit for all actions. This leads to somebody deciding who, what, when, and where the health care is to be provided, and how much the provider would be reimbursed. Health care is very expensive and economic resource consuming. To implement health care for all requires that you must control costs or be overwhelmed by the expense, or to increase taxes substantially to fund this policy. The tax increases required to fund health care for all could cause economic hardship to society, leading to a recession or depression, and perhaps an economic collapse. Those that say they would only tax the rich or companies to fund health care for all have not done their math nor considered the economic impacts. The rich and companies do not have enough monies to pay for health care for all. Taxing the rich and companies in amounts to help pay for health care for all depresses economic growth and leads to less pay and fewer jobs. The only sufficient funding for health care for all is heavy taxes on the middle class, which leads to a poorer quality of life for the middle class, another immorality. Health care for all does benefit those in need, or potential need, of medical treatment. But these are the expensive needs of the few (and perhaps not so few) that must be borne by the many. At what point is this financial burden greater than the benefits to be gained? A very hard question to ask, and an even harder question to answer. But it must be asked and answered for an economically feasible health care policy.

The best and brightest of our young would not be interested in pursuing a medical degree as the rewards would not be compensatory to the efforts needed to enter the field. This would reduce the number and quality of physicians and nurses, as well as the support personnel in the medical arena, another immorality.

Pharmaceutical companies, diagnostic and treatment equipment manufacturers, researchers, and experimental treatments would have little incentive for invention or innovation as they would see little return on their investment. This slows the pace of new cures and treatments, and results in a poorer quality of life, and possibly a shorter life, for those inflicted with diseases. Once again, another immorality.

This also leads to the issues as outlined in the articles “Medicare For All Would Wipe Out Jobs, Pensions, and 401(k)s” and “’Medicare-for-all’ would be hazardous to the health of seniors – Rationed care could be deadly” by Sally C. Pipes President, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute.

Food Clothing, and Shelter

Another immorality is that providing food, shelter, and clothing for all would result in a minimal standard of living for all. Again, proving these items is very expensive and economic resource consuming. They also usually result in minimal necessities leading to drab, overcrowded and dilapidated housing, food shortages, lines at food stores, as well as plain non-fashionable clothing. One would need to only look at what occurred in Communist countries when they implement their version of socialism. There would also be economic impacts on the farming and food industries, as well as the transportation industry, as you would need to control these costs by implementing reimbursements and price controls. This would have severe negative repercussions on the economy and could easily result in a depression, a depression that would make life worse for all Americans.

Consequences of Immorality

Another immoral result is that providing health care, food, shelter, and clothing for all also leads to disincentives to work and achieve. If your base needs are provided for, and the rewards of working are limited due to heavy taxation, it is often not economically advantageous to expend your time working and bettering yourself.

As people try to better their lives for themselves and their families they will resort to black-marketeering to obtain what they want or need. This leads to many immoral acts from both the provider and recipient of the black-market.

The human emotions of Greed, Avarice, Sloth, Anger or Wrath, Envy, Pride, Gluttony, and Lust, individually or in combination, intervene to make socialism impracticable. And the goodwill of people cannot overcome the repeated injuries and usurpations that occur with socialism, nor their own personal desires. Socialism also restricts the human right of liberty and freedom as outlined in my Chirp “Freedom from - Liberty to”.

History is replete with examples where people formed collectives and shared resources. In all cases, this collectivist failed and sometimes failed miserably resulting in economic collapse, disease, death, injuries, and starvation. History also shows that limited collectivists can also lead to the “Tragedy of the Commons”, other acts of selflessness, and other immoralities.

The Imposition of Socialism Leads to Immorality

Socialism is becoming more mainstream, meaning more Americans are okay with being told to sit down, shut up and fork over their money. Socialism can also lead to evil. Often, socialism requires the forceful imposition of its policies. A force that can be injuriousness and/or deadly. If you oppose socialist policies, or in a minority group within socialism, you will be repressed, fined, and perhaps imprisoned or executed for your acts or speech of your conscience. One need only look at the history of the 20^th century to confirm this. Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Imperial Japan had socialism as the basis of their economic policies as explained in my article “Nazism & Fascism”. The history of these ideologies, which were based on socialism, is mass deaths and murders, starvation, communicable diseases, imprisonment, economic deprivation, and suppression of human rights. The very definition of evil.

In the past when one type or another of socialism has been tried there has been a dramatic increase in alcohol and/or drug use and abuse within the population. This has led to an increase of immoral acts by the users and abusers. This is in itself immoral and contributes to the immorality of socialism.

The government within itself is socialist. Government employees are bound by laws, rules, regulations, and procedures, and unaccountable for results. Nor being unable to discharge employees for incompetence or Intentionally contemptuous behavior or attitude is an excellent example of how socialism works.

The other immorality of socialism is that the proponents of socialism will often engage in prevarications, historical inaccuracies, lying, economic fallacies, and faulty mathematics to achieve their goals. And these acts in of themselves are immoral.

For those that support socialism who say that in the past it was the wrong type of socialism that led to its failures, I would counter that it is no right way to implement an immoral system, for its very immorality will doom it to failure.

Governments in Charge

Finally, a recent statement by Jesse Watters on the death of Jeffrey Epstein while in federal custody illuminates the problems with the government being in charge:

“But you know what this is about. This is about government incompetence at the highest level. This is the most high profile, probably one of the most richest, most relevant politically connected individual that you have in federal lockup right now. He has connections to some of the most distinguished and political successful people in the world. Your talking kings, presidents, and princes. And they have one job. To keep him safe and to monitor him, and it’s been a complete and utter failure...”. “So many things went wrong. Yet the left wants to put the government in charge of the entire US economy. They want to put the government in charge of everyone’s health care and they cannot even watch one guy. So how does that make everyone else feel that they cannot do their one simple basic job, yet they want to be in control of all our lives? I don’t think it is going to go very well”.

And socialism is putting the government in charge. And I don’t think it is going to go very well.

Socialism and Capitalism

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.
The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
- Winston Churchill

Capitalism is Freedom and Liberty

Capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised by man, except for all the others. Capitalism's primary thrust is to provide as much goods and services, and in as an expedient and economical manner as possible, while rewarding those who provide the goods and services that other people want. No other economic system except Capitalism has succeeded in bringing the people the goods and services they want, at a price they can afford, or in a timely manner than Capitalism. It has provided growth and innovation that benefits all. Unbridled Capitalism can do harm, but tightly regulated Capitalism can do more harm. We must reach a balance in Capitalism between protecting the people and expanding Capitalism to promote economic freedom and liberty so as to improve the lot of all the people. Doing so will provide job growth and tax revenues, and therefore a better economic climate for all.

Unbridled Capitalism can be oppressive if it evolves into monopolies or near-monopolies, but this can be regulated through appropriate laws. However, capitalism provides the freedom for people to better themselves, and to better the lot of all people. Just look at the Information Technology tycoons of the last half of the 20^th century and the 21^st century. Most all of them started from modest or poor means, and by utilizing their intelligence and hard work, and through capitalism means they have built large companies that provided wealth to themselves and others, jobs and economic opportunities to their employees and suppliers, and provided products and services that vastly improved the quality of life for all who utilize their products and services.

Capitalistic economies also feed the world. Capitalistic farming provides an overabundance of food supplies that are often shipped to parts of the world that suffer from undersupply. Most of those undersupplied countries have an economic system that is not Capitalistic, and as statisticians would say this is causality, not a correlation. Without Capitalism, many of the people of the world would die of starvation. Capitalism is also responsible for inventing prescription drug treatments, medical technology, and medical techniques that save many lives and increase the quality of life. Capitalism was also responsible for changing society from a manually intensive, back-breaking, animal labor agrarian basis to a mechanized and electrical labor-saving industrial basis. It then was responsible for changing society to an electronic and informational basis that has significantly reduced mental drudgery. All this societal change has provided economic benefits to the people and made life easier and more enjoyable for all. All of this is a result of Capitalism. This is also true for many other products and services as well, especially when it comes to supplying products and services required for basic human needs.

Can you point out a single socialist economic system that has accomplished any improvements in the quality of life? I don’t think so. Therefore, Capitalism is of great benefit to mankind!

Capitalism may have short periods of economic downturn, but it recovers, and in the long term the economy continues upward.  Capitalism is, therefore, the best economic system ever devised by mankind.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

The question is then would you choose the unequal sharing of blessings or the equal sharing of miseries? For me, I will choose the blessings rather than the miseries. For if you have blessings you can assist those in misery. If everyone is in misery, there is no hope of achieving blessings except by the overthrow of the system that is causing your misery. Why would you implement a system that you would eventually have to overthrow? An overthrow that could cause more misery and even massive deaths, disease, or destruction.

The solution to the unequal in a capitalistic economy is three-fold; a growing economy, education, and training, as well as safety nets. A growing economy raises all boats, as it provides more and better jobs for all. We should also provide a proper education (see my article on “Public Schools”) or re-training for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The creation of safety nets is to help the most impoverished and destitute of our citizens. This safety net should only impact a small percentage of our citizens (low single digits percentage of the population). To expand the safety net to a larger percentage of the population is to implement socialism in a slippery slope manner and must be avoided at all costs.

You must also remember the following pithy poster: