I know some may bristle when I say that I believe socialism is in America’s current political system, but there are reasons for me believing so.

When the government can directly confiscate an arbitrary portion of my earnings (via the income tax), that’s socialism.

When the government has arbitrary authority to regulate all aspects of my life (what I eat, the car I drive, the clothing I wear, the place I work, ad infinitum), with unelected bureaucrats doing most of the decision-making, that’s socialism.

When the government makes it nearly compulsory to get a Social Security Number and then “contribute,” whether you like it or not, to this retirement program every time you get paid, that’s socialism.

When the government discourages wealth creation by punishing the wealthy for being wealthy (i.e. higher income tax bracket), that’s socialism.

When a huge percentage of the populus receives money from the government without paying any, that’s socialism.

When the government forces me to be charitable by deducting money from my paycheck for medicaid and medicare, that’s socialism.

There are opposites to all of these: a respect for private property rights, including the fruit’s of one’s labors, should be primary.  Freedom, in other words, and liberty, should be the principles upon which our government is based.  Charity becomes a private matter, between individuals and God.  Economizing and exchange should be minimally regulated, if at all.  

The opposites:

When the government allows me to keep all of my paycheck (the fruits of my labors), that is freedom.

When the government regulates itself heavily and only intervenes in the lives of its citizens as specified in the Constitution, that is freedom.

When the government allows me to withdraw from contributing to (or benefiting from) Social Security, that is freedom.

When the government encourages the wealthy to keep their wealth and save or invest it in as they see fit, that is freedom.

When taxation is minimal, funds only those Constitutionally-authorized government functions, and never singles out any class or group of people unequally, that is freedom.

When the government encourages private donations and contributions by not creating and supporting a dependent underclass, that is freedom.

Notice the Republicans are doing nearly nothing to counter the major socialist influences in America.  We need a freedom party, a Constitution Party, a Libertarian Party, and a Campaign for Liberty.

Chris Reeve is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He currently resides with his wife and two children in northern Ohio. Visit Chris' website Mormon Paleo Thought.

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

ed42 said:

	When the government exists, there is socialism.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2008
Votes: -1

least of these said:

	I believe that socialism is a type of economy rather than a type of government but then I could easily be mistaken. I suspect if you that was correct there might need to be a different term for the government that institutes socialism as fascism or communism. Thanks for the fine article!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2008
Votes: -1

hmmm. . ., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Charles said:

Satan's counterfeits of God's plans are still deceiving people. How does socialism compare with the United Order and the Law of Consecration? The same way Lucifer's plan compared with the Father's plan. Yes, Jesus taught us to give to the needy. But he never told us to hold a gun to our neighbor's head and force him to give to the needy. Or confiscate his house or his liberty if he failed to pay what we thought they should to help the needy. What Jesus taught was based on love and agency. Satan's plan (a.k.a. socialism) was/is based on force. A subtle but critical difference.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 15, 2008
Votes: +5

T said:

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.... The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property. Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property. The law is justice -- simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this. If you exceed this proper limit -- if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic -- you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself? --Frederick Bastiat's "The Law" Read in its' entirety here: http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

report abuse vote down vote up

November 17, 2008
Votes: +3

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment