Redistribution is socialism. Socialism is legislated theft. Social programs redistribute tax dollars from earners to non-earners. Social programs are socialism and therefore legislated theft. Totalitarians have been trying to implement the perfect socialist system for the last two centuries. Were it not for the freedom loving western world standing against the fascists/socialists, Hitler Stalin or Mao may have brought the world under global socialism. But what happens when the western world leads a fascist/socialistic world-wide socialist transformation? The Bible foretells that in the last days before the return of Jesus, a powerful political system will rise on the scene. A European leader will figuratively "cross the Rubicon" by assuming control of this world-wide system...
Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying , Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
“Sanders is wrong about the New Deal “putting people to work” since their government-funded activity did nothing to create wealth or end the depression.”
While it didn’t create wealth, the CCC did move money around to keep people working. Even if it was make-work (and some of the work in parks was really well done), at the very least it kept people in the mind-frame that they would WORK - not just sit home, breed, and get paid.
It might help if we stuck with the long established definition of socialism as state or "social" control of the means of production, rather than apply it to every friggin' thing governments do.
As mentioned in related threads, low-information Bernie Sanders is an excellent example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.
More specifically, Sen. Sanders, along with many other low-information senators, including former Senators Clinton and Obama, have evidently never understood that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to establish social spending programs like Social Security and Obamacare.
What would a nineteenth century socialist--with his economic fixation--make of today's "socialism," with its hatred of the working classes and its elevation of sexual deviancy to its number one cause?
My handy definition of socialism is any government takings from private citizens that are not used for common benefit. That pretty much covers all socialist programs, while denying the socialists the ability to claim ordinary government project like roads, schools, hospitals, etc.
I believe the aspect of socialism that is most repugnant is that somebody in a high-power position will always choose what THEY think is in the best interests of the COLLECTIVE at the EXPENSE of the rights and liberties of the individual.
In this country, historically at least, we believe what is best for the INDIVIDUAL is what is best for the collective. We have inalienable rights. Socialist countries don’t believe that. Your rights stop when somebody else believes the collective is better off without them.
This, along with your point about legislated theft (same concept though), is why socialism is so dangerous. How can anybody oppose what is “in the best interests of everyone”?? To say it is Orwellian would be an understatement.
The purpose of the state isn't to defend the rights of individuals against either the rich and powerful or against the majority. It's purpose, in fact, is to enable the majority and/or the rich and powerful to violate the rights of the minority, and of individuals.
"When they saw the situation of the monopolizers of security, the producers of other commodities could not help but notice that nothing in the world is more advantageous than monopoly. They, in turn, were consequently tempted to add to the gains from their own industry by the same process. But what did they require in order to monopolize, to the detriment of the consumers, the commodity they produced? They required force. However, they did not possess the force necessary to constrain the consumers in question. What did they do? They borrowed it, for a consideration, from those who had it. They petitioned and obtained, at the price of an agreed upon fee, the exclusive privilege of carrying on their industry within certain determined boundaries. Since the fees for these privileges brought the producers of security a goodly sum of money, the world was soon covered with monopolies. Labor and trade were everywhere shackled, enchained, and the condition of the masses remained as miserable as possible." ~ Gustave de Molinari
statist. n. 1. Someone who believes that, in order to prevent the rich and powerful from stealing from and oppressing the poor and the weak, it is necessary to give the rich and the powerful a monopoly on making law, enforcing the law, stealing from whomever they choose, and judging whether or not they've followed the laws that they themselves make.
The rich and powerful will *always* end up in control of the state:
"When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating." ~ Frédéric Bastiat
Iron law of oligarchy: "sociological thesis according to which all organizations, including those committed to democratic ideals and practices, will inevitably succumb to rule by an elite few (an oligarchy). The iron law of oligarchy contends that organizational democracy is an oxymoron. Although elite control makes internal democracy unsustainable, it is also said to shape the long-term development of all organizations—including the rhetorically most radical—in a conservative direction.
Robert Michels spelled out the iron law of oligarchy in the first decade of the 20th century in Political Parties, a brilliant comparative study of European socialist parties that drew extensively on his own experiences in the German Socialist Party. Influenced by Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy as well as by Vilfredo Pareto’s and Gaetano Mosca’s theories of elite rule, Michels argued that organizational oligarchy resulted, most fundamentally, from the imperatives of modern organization: competent leadership, centralized authority, and the division of tasks within a professional bureaucracy. These organizational imperatives necessarily gave rise to a caste of leaders whose superior knowledge, skills, and status, when combined with their hierarchical control of key organizational resources such as internal communication and training, would allow them to dominate the broader membership and to domesticate dissenting groups. Michels supplemented this institutional analysis of internal power consolidation with psychological arguments drawn from Gustave Le Bon’s crowd theory. From this perspective, Michels particularly emphasized the idea that elite domination also flowed from the way rank-and-file members craved guidance by and worshipped their leaders. Michels insisted that the chasm separating elite leaders from rank-and-file members would also steer organizations toward strategic moderation, as key organizational decisions would ultimately be taken more in accordance with leaders’ self-serving priorities of organizational survival and stability than with members’ preferences and demands." ~ Encyclopedia Britannica
Fascinating/educational/historical thread. Thanks to every poster.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
http://www.lbjlibrary.org/press/the-1965-medicare-amendment-to-the-social-security-act
http://www.healthinfolaw.org/federal-law/medicaid-title-xix-social-security-act
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-3.html
https://www.medicaid.gov/affordablecareact/affordable-care-act.html
Every system of government (capitalism is not a form of government) ends up having to deal with the same problem: “the poor will always be with you.” Government also has to deal with sociopathy, psychopathy and amoral and immoral forces. In homogenous ethnic populations this is fairly easy and looks like Euro states, in the US, it is much uglier since there is no common sense or common ethnos. We loathe the other with a xenophobia that is boundless as it is faceless.
Welcome to the New Socialist Caliphate of the Western Hemisphere.