Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Socialism is Theft. Any Questions?


Socialism.

As a word, I’m sure it sounds fairly innocuous to the mindless robots that seem to make up most of the world’s population these days.  After all, the base part of the word is “social,” and heck, who doesn’t like being social?  And if you look at the official definition of socialism in the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, you still won’t find anything that sounds all that sinister to a mindless robot: 

Socialism:  “A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”

Or:

1.  “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods;”

2.  “A system of society or group living in which there is no private property;”

3.  “A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done;”

See?  It’s just another economic theory.  Just another “system.”   The definitions don’t talk about how “the government” comes into possession of the means of production, or how what was once private property magically becomes public property.  It ignores that whole ugly process as if it doesn’t exist, but we know the truth, don’t we?  In order for industries to be owned and controlled by “the government” or for private property to cease to exist the industries and the private property must first be forcibly taken from the people who once owned them.  In other words, they must be stolen.  That’s the ugly truth about socialism that gets conveniently glossed over.  That’s why someone like Bernie Sanders can openly declare that he’s a socialist and not be viciously rejected by people who presumably would acknowledge that theft is immoral.  The robots hear “socialism” and they’ve been programmed, thanks to public education run by the Left, to think of it as just another morally equivalent economic alternative to free market capitalism. 

It’s no such thing.

In a sane world where personal rights are respected, anyone who openly advocates socialism as a societal “system” should be – at a minimum – arrested and confined behind bars for a very long time, because there is no difference between advocating socialism and suborning THEFT.  Pray tell me what is the difference between proposing “free” (i.e. with money forcibly taken from taxpayers) healthcare, college and daycare and simply calling outright for people to steal from those who have something they want?  There’s zero difference, which is why socialism is THEFT - period.

The news accounts of the thousands of thieves-in-waiting who are filling the seats at Bernie Sanders’ rallies and salivating at the prospect of having government as their gang leader should sicken anyone who values economic freedom and wants to preserve it for their children.  Make no mistake - the socialists at the Sanders rallies are no better than the smash and grab gangs we see on the news who take what they want with complete disregard for the people they steal from.  The only difference, by and large, is the color of their skin and the absence of hoodies.  How do these people face themselves in the mirror at night?  What went wrong in their upbringing that they are lining up for their chance to steal from their neighbors and fellow citizens, all the while patting themselves on their backs for their virtuousness?  More importantly, why are we tolerating this blatant threat to our property rights? 

It’s not helpful that we have the usual wonks who get out their calculators (sound familiar, Wall Street Journal?) and turn this issue into a matter of dollars and cents rather than right versus wrong.  They answer the socialists with calculations of how much their socialism is going to cost.  LOL.  Since when are thieves persuaded by their victims’ arguments of how much the thieving will cost them?  Oh, and did I mention that socialists are liars too?  They will always insist that everyone is better off if we give the socialists the power to steal.  As I’ve said in the past ad nauseam, the minute free people respond to the socialists/thieves by debating the cost of the proposed theft, the free people have lost.  Period, end of story.  This is an issue of rights, and it doesn’t matter if it costs ten cents or ten trillion dollars.  We are the U.S. of A., and people are supposed to have rights to their property, a principle that is entirely lost on socialists and wonks with calculators.

Bernie Sanders is openly and unapologetically running on a platform of outright THEFT, and he and his supporters should be in jail; but I will say this for Bernie:  at least he is an honest thief.   And don’t be fooled by those who dismiss Bernie Sanders’ chances because he’s a proud socialist/thief.  Virtually every member of the Democrat Party is a socialist by word and deed, regardless of what label they give themselves.  Obama had the same goals as Sanders, but unlike Bernie he wasn’t so honest about his plans and his cunning approach helped him significantly advance the agenda of the thieves in his capacity as gang leader.  Hillary Clinton is just another thief in a pink pantsuit.  For that matter, there are a number of Republicans who fit in that ugly shoe as well.

Earlier I asked, “Why are we tolerating this blatant threat to our property rights?”  The answer is that we’ve been programmed to accept theft in the guise of social policy for close to a century now, and those who understand what’s going on also understand that there is no political solution to this problem.  That’s right, read between the lines.  That’s one reason that the socialists/thieves are laser-focused on dismantling our Second Amendment rights and disarming the citizenry.  The other reason is that socialism thrives when they can divide a population with wedge issues, but that’s an essay for another day.




~CW



8 comments:

  1. So ironic coming from a Conservative who wants to redistribute my wealth to Israel (and just about every other nation on Earth and the UN as a means of applying "soft power"), the military-industrial complex (and again, the UN, in the form of the USA being "world's policeman"), who supports Social Security and Medicare, and who has voted for Republicans like Reagan and GWB who doubled the nat'l debt and instituted yet more social-welfare programs...

    Even more confounding is that the "anti-socialist" writer of this piece (and 99% of all Cons) did everything in their power to deny the 2008 & 2012 GOP nomination to possibly the STRONGEST anti-socialist congressman in American history: RON PAUL (who has now been 100% vindicated on his America-first foreign policy, whereas we see the utter Con failure in the middle-east every day).

    Socialism IS theft--even when its YOUR socialism. You shoulda listened to libertarians, sweety...you Cons have had 35 years of your GOP w/significant power and things are WORSE than prior to the Reagan/Conservative Revolutions...

    My decision to leave the USSA is looking better all the time...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its also blindingly obvious that the anti-gun trend is the dominant one in our society...and, once again, when Cons had the chance to support possibly the STRONGEST 2nd-amendment congressman in American history (RON PAUL) they instead chose the mentally-unbalanced liberal John McCain who, while not horrible on guns (probably only because he had to pretend to be pro-gun to Arizonians, I've no doubt he'd've gone anti-gun as President if it was politically expedient), wasn't nearly as good as RON PAUL w/his "A+" GOA grade...and then Cons chose Romney (grade "D-" from GOA) over Paul in 2012...

    You've no one to blame but yourselves, Dear Cons...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I expect you to censor me, but maybe you'll surprise me...in any event I'm thoroughly enjoying watching (on a daily basis!) the complete and utter disaster of neocon foreign-policy unfolding in the middle-east...esp. seeing Russia exposing the USA's foolishness and weakness (as well as putting paid to the USA's pet terrorist groups in Syria) and seeing Iran emerge victorious against the USA's sanctions, assuming an even more dominant role in Iraq (and preparing to take down the corrupt House Of Saud)...

    What more can libertarians say but "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

    I mean, how friggin STUPID did someone have to be to buy into the INSANITY of neocon foreign-policy? From the looks of it, most Cons STILL haven't learned! You ain't the Stupid Party for nuthin!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you’d like to double-dog dare me to post your comment.

      The reason you are “censored,” as you are well aware, is because all you do is repeat the same weak drivel over and over, and I’ve already extended the courtesy of responding to you in depth multiple times. It would be nice if Lew Rockwell could teach you some new phrases to parrot so that the drivel would have some variety to it. Another reason I’ve given up on your comments is because you insist on trying to mold me into your ideal enemy rather than debate me as I really am. I guess you think that’s the only way you can win. Just for grins, though, I’ll say it all AGAIN.

      I do not support the U.N., Social Security or Medicare. I did not support GW in his first primary or McCain or Romney in their primaries. News flash to you: they won anyway. As for your contention that I “did everything in my power” to “deny” Ron Paul the nomination in 08 and 12, I’d love to know where you got that idea. I’ve been mostly silent on Paul, with the exception of the discussions you and I have had. Paul and his supporters have to accept some responsibility for their failure to make his message resonate.

      As I’ve told you before, there is no basis for your claim that Ron Paul has been vindicated on his foreign policy, because in order for that to be true we would have to see that policy in force. The closest we have to that in modern times is Obama and I’m certainly not seeing any vindication in that.

      I censor you because for all your blatherings and righteous indignation, you voted for Obama. You should have kept that little factoid to yourself, sweetie.

      >>” My decision to leave the USSA is looking better all the time...”

      At least we agree on that!

      Delete
  4. LOL...pretty clueless to equate RP's FP ideas to Obama basically continuing GWB's/Conservative's FP ideas...such is the state of the Con movement these days.

    Ironically Trump and Carson (both who claim to have been against the Iraq Disaster) are currently at the top of the GOP dung-heap...I guess some of you Cons are capable of learning, albeit its too little too late (and a decade + after libertarians figured it out!)...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think Trump or Carson are anything like RP with respect to foreign policy you’re even nuttier than I thought, and they certainly aren’t libertarians. But look who I’m talking to – the “libertarian” who voted for Barack Obama.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. FYI I detest male bloggers who think they can get a cheap leg up by calling me “honey” or “sweetie.” If you want to debate here then first you’ll need to apologize and you’d better make it sound good. If you choose not to, that’s fine with me. You only know one song and you don’t sing very well.

      Delete