 |
| image from here |
If a majority votes to kill all the people of a particular
minority group, does that make it right?
If a majority votes to enslave a minority group, does that
make it right?
If a majority votes to confiscate all the belongings of some
minority group, does that make it right?
How do you know those majority choices aren’t right? Because
those things aren’t right in the first place.
Allowing the majority to do whatever it decides to do, no
matter how evil, is what we call tyranny of the majority. That’s why our
Founding Fathers made sure we didn’t get a democracy; we got a constitutional
republic. That means the majority—and the government voted on by the majority—is
limited in specific ways, and the rights of individuals are not to be infringed
by any majority whim.
So, if murder is wrong for one person to do to another, it’s
also wrong for the majority to do to any individual or minority group. If slavery
is wrong for one person to do to another, it’s also wrong for the majority to do
to a minority. And if theft is wrong for one person to do to another, it’s also
wrong for the majority to do to a minority.
That means, if socialism is forcibly taking the fruits of
labor of some people and giving them to others—theft—then it doesn’t make it
right or better to call it democratic socialism, or tyranny-of-the-majority
socialism.
Calling it democratic socialism doesn’t even make it
different from that regular socialism that has failed everywhere it’s been
tried, and has resulted in millions upon millions of deaths to the people
living under those regimes. The Russian Social-Democrats (i.e., democratic
socialists) were the party Lenin aligned with. And Hitler, of the National Socialist (NAZI) party in Germany, was elected to
power by a majority of voters in his country.
This tagging on the word democratic
in front of socialism isn’t even really putting lipstick on a pig, as intended;
it’s just putting barnyard debris on the pig that’s already been wallowing.
Sometimes a parody site says things even more accurately
than a news site. Here’s the Babylon Bee’s
“handy explainer” to clear up any confusion about democratic socialism:
What is Democratic Socialism?
Democratic Socialism is a growing movement in America
promising every citizen the most basic human rights, including but not limited
to free healthcare, a government-guaranteed job making at least $15 per hour,
free college tuition, guaranteed housing, broadband internet access, and
cage-free vegan lattes.
How would the
government pay for all of that?
By rightfully appropriating money from terrible, evil,
oppressive, hardworking, enterprising citizens who have earned wealth via the
dreaded free market economy that has led to unprecedented human flourishing.
Governments are known for being the most efficient spenders of money, and so
surely would do an excellent job as stewards of your wealth—err, we mean, the
public’s wealth.
Isn’t it immoral to
take most of the money people earn?
No—actually, it’s the right thing to do. People with money
only got that money because of inherent privilege, racism, sexism, bigotry,
homophobia, transphobia, patriarchy, and all kinds of other unfair power
structures and phobias. You know what, we’re a little concerned with all the
questions you’re asking here. It sounds like someone needs to spend a little
more time in a democratic re-education loyalty center! KILL THE KULAKS!
How does Democratic
Socialism differ from just “Socialism”?
It has the word “Democratic” in front of it, you see, which
means it is achieved by promoting identity politics, stoking class warfare, and
cranking that entitlement mentality up to 11, instead of literal violent
overthrow of the government. Besides, voting for the government to seize
people’s wealth is totally different from the government deciding to do so on
their own, right? Err… uh… DID WE MENTION YOU GET FREE STUFF?? Say it with us:
Socialism good, Democratic Socialism better!
It seems like if you
try to run the numbers, there’s just no way Democratic Socialism is a fiscally
feasible form of government.
“Run the numbers”? “Fiscally feasible”? Have you been paying
attention, like, at all? Do you want free money, or are you part of the problem?
YOU GET FREE MONEY, AND YOU GET FREE MONEY—ERRYBODY GETS FREE
MONEEEEEEEEEEEY!!!
Is there an example of
this form of government working out well in the world?
YES! Venezuela is a socialist paradise, having achieved an
almost totally equal distribution of hunger and lack of basic necessities. With
features like 46,000% inflation, mass starvation, empty grocery stores, and
total economic collapse, it’s a great real-world example of a socialist utopia!
THAT’S HOW YOU STICK IT TO THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY, BABY! OWN THE CAPITALISTS
WITH THIS ONE GREAT TRICK!
As you can see, the centralization of wealth and power to an
elite few in government is perfectly in line with the ideas America was founded
on. Now let’s get out there and democratically seize the means of production,
comrades!
As I said in February 2016,
No one should be allowed to vote for a socialist if they’re
still so uninformed that they think it’s all about being social and about
getting free stuff.
I don’t know how we’d ever enforce such a requirement, since
we allow any registered voter to vote (and, if you’re a democrat, even
unregistered voters and dead people). But in theory I’d be in favor of a pop
quiz on the Constitution and free market before granting that voter
registration card. Or maybe just a DGOTV (don’t get out the vote) campaign for
those whose ignorance can harm the country.
Seriously, if you want freedom, prosperity, and
civilization, socialism will not and cannot get you there. It takes away
freedom of all sorts; it is a system based on coercion. It takes away incentive
by taking away the fruits of your labor, along with many of your choices
concerning how to spend whatever you have left after the government takings. It
leads to an eventual outcome of savage tyranny, by design.
Here’s the track record of some of the bigger ones (so, not
including Castro’s Cuba, Che Guevera’s Venezuela, Kim Jong Il or Kim Jong Un’s North
Korea, and others):
Regime
|
Span of years
|
Estimated deaths of own people (non-military deaths)
|
National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI)
|
1939-1945
|
14.2 million:[i]
* 6 million Jews
* 5.7 million non-Jewish Soviets
* 2.5 million Polish, Serbs, others
|
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
|
1917-1987
|
62 million[ii]
|
Chinese Communists under Mao
|
1949-1987
|
76 million
|
Khmer Rouge (Cambodian socialists under Pol Pot, patterned on Mao)
|
1975-1979
|
2.2 million (1/3 population)[iii]
|
Not included, but worth mentioning, are market economies
with socialized segments, such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries, which
the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom lists are freer markets than the
US at this point. Wealth comes from markets and gets used up by
socialist segments, so markets are required to sustain government spending. So, in some ways, patterning on
these nations would require less government control of our economy than we have
now, not more, as the democratic socialist activists would have you believe. But
I have discussed the high tax results of Sweden and Denmark.
Here’s a good discussion of the definition of democratic socialism, by Ben Shapiro,
from the first portion of his speech at the 40th annual YAF
Conference. Worth viewing.
[i] United States Holocaust Museum's online Holocaust Encyclopedia:
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008193
[ii] Walter E. Williams, "Socialism's Death Count," August 7, 2012. He references Rudolph J. Rummel's book and website Death by Government.
[ii] Walter E. Williams, "Socialism's Death Count," August 7, 2012. He references Rudolph J. Rummel's book and website Death by Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment