Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Socialism is EVIL -- Walter Williams
Capitalism Magazine ^ | 8/17/04 | Walter Williams

Posted on 08/20/2004 1:48:58 AM PDT by Capitalism2003

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3863

Socialism is Evil: Part II by Walter Williams (August 17, 2004)

Summary: Positive reader response to "Socialism Is Evil" was quite surprising.

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com]

Positive reader response to "Socialism Is Evil" was quite surprising.

That column argued that it was an immoral, not to mention unconstitutional, act for Congress, through the tax code, to confiscate the earnings of one American to give to another American in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts. It's immoral because it forcibly uses one person to serve the purposes of another. Indeed, that's one way to define slavery and other forms of servitude.

Several letters of disagreement interpreted my argument as being against taxation. They used the sleight-of-hand approach saying that we need taxation for national defense, the courts and other constitutionally authorized purposes as if that observation meant that taxation for any other purpose was just as legitimate. Let me be explicit. Taxes to finance certain federal activities are indeed legitimate as well as constitutional.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates just what federal functions Congress has taxing and spending authority. Among them are national defense, post offices and post roads, courts and a few other activities. Or, as James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

“Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."

Nowhere in our Constitution is there even a hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today. Don't be tricked by those who'd argue that Congress has such authority under the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison explained, "With respect to the two words ‘general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them …" Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The "detail of powers" or those "specifically enumerated" refer to what's actually laid out in the Constitution. The Framers had the foresight to see that these powers might need modification. That's why they gave us Article V as a means to amend the Constitution.

One reader criticized, "The essence of democracy is that the will of the majority conveys legitimacy to actions of the state." That's a sad commentary on both understanding and education. The Founders didn't intend for us to be a democracy but instead a republic. But more importantly, majority rule often confers an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Let's look at it:

Consider a few everyday decisions such as: whom we marry, what food we eat, where we live and what clothes we wear. How many of us would want majority rule to determine those decisions. For example, your family would like ham for Thanksgiving dinner and vacations in Mexico, but you're prevented from doing so because the majority of Americans decided on turkey for Thanksgiving and vacations in Canada. Were decisions actually made this way, most of us would agree that we'd be living in a state of tyranny.

Of course these particular decisions aren't made through a majority rule political process, but they do illustrate that there's nothing sacrosanct about majority rule; it can be just another form of tyranny. It's just as tyrannical for majority rule to determine other choices such as: retirement (Social Security), prescription drugs, health care and other unconstitutional uses of a person's earnings.

When the democratic process reigns in matters of constitutionally enumerated federal government matters, we have the liberty that the Framers envisioned -- anywhere else it most likely means tyranny.

See also... Socialism is Evil: Part 1

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3814

Socialism is Evil by Walter Williams (August 1, 2004)

Summary: It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com]

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.

About the Author: Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: walterwilliams

1 posted on 08/20/2004 1:48:58 AM PDT by Capitalism2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
Democratic majority is like two wolves and one sheep voting on the dinner menu.

Forgot where I stole this idea.

Our constitutional Republic protects the lone sheep.
2 posted on 08/20/2004 2:00:55 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (GEORGE WASHINGTON is nothing like a communist tyrant as stated by Kerry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Forgot where I stole this idea.

Jim Quinn....aka Quinn in the Morning....aka The Warroom. used to be on WRRK in Pittsburgh...now on WPGB in Pittsburgh...one of the fastest growing talk stations ever...kinda cool, especially for W PA.

prisoner6

3 posted on 08/20/2004 2:06:06 AM PDT by prisoner6 (Right Wing Nuts hold the country together as the loose screws of the left fall out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Forgot where I stole this idea.

IIRC that particular "quote" is from Winston Churchill

4 posted on 08/20/2004 2:08:41 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; HuntsvilleTxVeteran
OPPPS.

Got that WAY wrong!! Benjamin Franklin

5 posted on 08/20/2004 2:12:01 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; HuntsvilleTxVeteran
OH WOW, here is a GREAT ONE

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers." -- Aristotle


6 posted on 08/20/2004 2:14:50 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003

Not once does Williams bring up the fact that while the Federal constitution was never meant to support redistribution of resources, state constitutions were not so reticent. There are many things that the Fedguv is doing, that should be state and local option alone.


7 posted on 08/20/2004 2:14:51 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Yhanks for URL

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
-- Benjamin Franklin


8 posted on 08/20/2004 2:26:01 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (GEORGE WASHINGTON is nothing like a communist tyrant as stated by Kerry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! Benjamin Franklin

Complete quote is even better.


9 posted on 08/20/2004 2:43:18 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (GEORGE WASHINGTON is nothing like a communist tyrant as stated by Kerry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.

Journalists think that PR isn't everything - it's the ONLY thing.

This line of analysis assumes that journalism is cynical, and that its "Code of Ethics" is a sham. IMHO it explains an awful lot of the facts on the ground. Without the phenomena I describe above, socialism would be a dead letter in America.
10 posted on 08/20/2004 3:06:30 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Or, as James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." I believe he hinted at it here.

I like Williams, because he is easy to understand, even for the laymen.

11 posted on 08/20/2004 4:04:05 AM PDT by Paradox (Occam was probably right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Or, as James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

“Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."

I believe he hinted at it here.

I like Williams, because he is easy to understand, even for the laymen.

12 posted on 08/20/2004 4:05:08 AM PDT by Paradox (Occam was probably right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Walter Williams alert!

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

13 posted on 08/20/2004 4:56:38 AM PDT by mhking (Why is every city in Iraq a "Holy City?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
This article has been posted to DoctorZin’s New News Blog!


14 posted on 08/20/2004 1:12:49 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

bump!

Spread this around folks. Many Freepers need a little more intellectual and philisophical ammo to back up their politcal fights.

We can do Bush v. Kerry all day...

but when it comes down to is, this is a battle of IDEAS, not people.


15 posted on 08/20/2004 3:57:58 PM PDT by Capitalism2003 (America is too great for small dreams. - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003

I agree...

Do you know of any good free market books that have been translated into Persian (Farsi). I have been looking and would love to find some good works.


16 posted on 08/20/2004 4:30:03 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
Once again, Mr Williams NAILS IT.

I've known socialism was evil ever since my father described the Communist system to me as a small boy:

"You don't want to EVER live under Communism, (Draka). Communist countries have NO FREEDOM at all. They tell you what to do, and boy, you'd better do it, or they'll ship you off to a prison camp or shoot you in the back of the head!"

Pretty harsh stuff to be laying on a 7 year old, but Dad was right, and he still is. (You'd be hard-pressed to find a more stalwart Patriot than my Dad. He raised me Right.)

17 posted on 08/20/2004 4:47:05 PM PDT by FierceDraka ("Party Before Country" - The New Motto of the Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson