Capitalism is Peaceful, Socialism is Force

Capitalism is Peaceful, Socialism is Force

In reality, it’s not the purpose of government to do anything — except to ensure that people are left alone. Anyone who values freedom, independence and life on earth wants only one thing: Protection … including from government itself.

by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. at DrHurd.com

Paul Krugman, the intellectual apostle of liberal-left socialism in the United States, recently wrote the following in The New York Times:
“One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state . . . morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate. The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.”
Note the choice Krugman gives us: Socialism with rich being forced to help the poor, or freedom where nobody ever helps anybody for any reason, whatsoever. Ridiculous!
Imagine you did a poll. The first question asks, “Is it good for the affluent to help the poor?” Most will answer yes. They’ll think of benevolent people with lots of money voluntarily giving some of that money to people who have little or nothing. What could be wrong with that? You’d end up with 95 to 99 percent saying, “Sure, it’s good for the affluent to help the poor.”
Now imagine this question: “Should affluent people be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail?” Put that way, you’d have a lot fewer than 99 percent saying, “yes.” You’d have about a third of Americans, those who form the base of Obama’s socialist constituency, saying “yes” for sure. To people like this, it’s inconceivable that any one person should have more wealth than another, and it’s impossible to bring this about without the force of government. To another third, you’d have wishy washy or unsure responses, and with the final third you’d perhaps have a decisive, or even a reluctant, “No.” This is speculation on my part, although it’s based on the way most people tend to vote in the United States. By and large, a third are socialist/liberal, a third are not, and another third are undecided.
What’s certain is that you can hold the view that force is always bad. Why? Because it is. Government wealth redistribution is force, plain and simple. It’s not a power authorized by the United States Constitution, and it’s never moral. It’s the principle of the thing: Initiating force against another is always wrong. When you form an army, a police force and build jails to house people who don’t obey you, and you threaten this loss of freedom (including death, should you try to escape) for not giving up a portion of your money to others, then this is force. And it’s wrong.
Krugman goes on to say: “There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose.”
This is correct, in that liberals and socialists are assuming that the imperative to serve others trumps civility and justice. They won’t put it this way, but this is what they’re implying and this is what ObamaCare, along with all welfare state policies, stand for in principle and practice. “You have more, therefore you must give up some of it.” What about the fact that you created it? What about the fact that it’s yours? And what happens when the object of your forced charity gets it; isn’t he obliged to give up his, as well? Clearly, there’s no objective or logical answer to any of these questions. What it all boils down to is legalized plunder. One group, with the guns and the prisons, forces the disadvantaged group to give up something that is theirs.
Liberals and socialists such as Krugman, Obama, and most of our political, academic and media Establishment have successfully brainwashed people into never asking or answering these questions. The unspoken reasoning: If you’re rich, it’s a bad thing, unless you give it all away. It’s only a good thing if government does it, because government is superior and can always be trusted in these matters.
The deeper issue, also unspoken but always implied: The extent to which you succeed and do well, you should feel guilty. You are obliged to give your success to others. End of story.
This is the exact opposite of an ethics based on individual achievement, individual responsibility, freedom, capitalism and private property. None of these things can survive if you operate on an ethics that undermines them. For a time, America had it both ways. It operated on a system of freedom, capitalism and private property, including profit. But the idea likewise spread that you should feel guilty for your achievements and accomplishments, at least when those accomplishments lead to material success (as accomplishments tend to do).
It’s ironic. Late twentieth and early twenty-first century America will go down in history, perhaps, as the Age of Oprah. “Who was Oprah?” future people will ask. She was the lady who preached personal fulfillment, made vast sums of money in a capitalist system, and then used that money and influence to help elect the most socialist President in American history. The Age of Oprah, rational historians will conclude, was the age of contradiction. Americans cheered the financial success of a woman under capitalism, a woman who helped ensure that system’s downfall.
Krugman also writes: “…the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.”
If only! I would love a political party that openly states all initiation of force against citizens is immoral, no matter what the circumstance. That’s not the G.O.P. I’ve ever seen, not even at its “Tea Party” best. The G.O.P. I see is one which sidesteps the issue, says we should cut spending, and claims that the purpose of government is to empower people rather than make them dependent on government handouts. In reality, it’s not the purpose of government to do anything — except to ensure that people are left alone. Anyone who values freedom, independence and life on earth wants only one thing: Protection … including from government itself.
Dr. Hurd has been in Private Practice of Psychotherapy and Personal Life Coaching since 1988. He blogs at DrHurd.com

If only! I would love a political party that openly states all initiation of force against citizens is immoral, no matter what the circumstance. That’s not the G.O.P. I’ve ever seen, not even at its “Tea Party” best. The G.O.P. I see is one which sidesteps the issue, says we should cut spending, and claims that the purpose of government is to empower people rather than make them dependent on government handouts. In reality, it’s not the purpose of government to do anything — except to ensure that people are left alone. Anyone who values freedom, independence and life on earth wants only one thing: Protection … including from government itself.
DrHurd.com Originally Posted by Marshall

You do understand that he holds no high regard for the GOP.

Welcome to my world Marshall, that is if you actually understand WTF it is you cut and paste.

You do understand that he holds no high regard for the GOP.

Welcome to my world Marshall, that is if you actually understand WTF it is you cut and paste. Originally Posted by WTF

You obviously don't read my posts.....I have no love for the GOP....the GOP to me is only a conservative target to conquer to advance our freedom loving agenda......

to vote Obama is treason to what you claim to believe....that is why I don't believe your libertarian claims......always follow what people do rather than what they say......

always follow what people do rather than what they say...... Originally Posted by Marshall

From DFW5Traveler's sig line:

I don't listen to what politicians say, I watch what politicians do.

Interestin'.

You obviously don't read my posts.....I have no love for the GOP....the GOP to me is only a conservative target to conquer to advance our freedom loving agenda......

to vote Obama is treason to what you claim to believe....that is why I don't believe your libertarian claims......always follow what people do rather than what they say...... Originally Posted by Marshall

I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.

I doubt you did.

From DFW5Traveler's sig line:

I don't listen to what politicians say, I watch what politicians do.

Interestin'. Originally Posted by Doove

Twins?Identical!

I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primary. Originally Posted by WTF

And Odumbo in the general........you're like a guy who swears he's straight, but keeps getting caught in bed with a man......

@WTF and Doove, I'm a prototype and I don't follow. It's the liberal sheep that can't seperate the two. As far as Marshall is concerned, I think he means well, but I prefer to give my own opinions backed by fact. Posting the articles is, IMHO, his way of starting the debate. All I've seen from the leftists and some on the right from this site do is try to shut him down instead of offering intelligent debate.

Nice article. while i don`t agree that socialism is force, i agree with you on the capitalism stuff. I like capitalism in combination with socialism when its necessary, which means non-exploitative capitalism

. I like capitalism in combination with socialism when its necessary, which means non-exploitative capitalism Originally Posted by ninasastri

Agreed.

Do you ladies care to give us examples of when you believe socialism is appropriate....also, why do you think socialism is NOT force?

And Odumbo in the general........you're like a guy who swears he's straight, but keeps getting caught in bed with a man...... Originally Posted by Marshall

............but I thought you was a lady the way you was acting!



I swear!

Do you ladies care to give us examples of when you believe socialism is appropriate....also, why do you think socialism is NOT force? Originally Posted by Marshall

I'm not a lady but your education was brought to you by socialism. Not that you have figured it out yet!

............but I thought you was a lady the way you was acting!



I swear! Originally Posted by WTF

herfacechair 1 WTF 0

I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.

I doubt you did.

Originally Posted by WTF

voting for ron paul in a primary is nothing but being a cock roach, its not what a roach can carry off, its what he messes up that hurts.

i voted for hillary in the dem primary, trying to break obama's wave, but it didnt help, that doesnt make me a libertarian.

I'm not a lady but your education was brought to you by socialism. Originally Posted by WTF

Well that explains a LOT.