Hang On, I'm Sending Help!

Over a wonderful dinner recently a dear friend and lifelong socialist asked me, W
hat do you have against socialism? Don t you want to help people? My objection to s
ocialism, I said, is that it is immoral and coercive. I want to help people as m
uch as anyone but I prefer to use my own money rather than what I can swipe from
my neighbors.
My friend insisted that socialists didn t force people to do anything they didn t wa
nt to. He pointed to the accomplishments of labor unions as proof.
I asked, If socialists aren t coercive why is it so dangerous to cross a picket lin
e?
Well, those people they re just SCABS, he said. He said the word
ile subspecies in need of immediate extermination.

scabs

as if naming a

So it s OK to beat up scabs? I asked, thinking that one man s scab is another man s low
bidder.
Well, why wouldn t they want to join the union? he replied, ignoring the question ass
uming scabs would be welcome in the union s big tent.
Why indeed, I thought, as I let the subject drop in the interest of fellowship a
nd good digestion. I know my friend is a kind and generous man. I know he would
see that substituting the word, niggers or Jews or queers for the word scabs
rk would shine light into the fetid maw of bigotry. But it was a light best left
unlit during a friendly dinner party.
My friend is an optimist. He is able to see the
eing its costs. At one point he said government
e only government had enough money to undertake
He never considered how government comes by its

in his

benefits of socialism without se

had to do all that it did becaus
such huge charitable endeavors.
vast treasure.

The heart of socialism is transferring control of property from private individu

als to public employees. These public officials are theoretically devoted to the
people. But in fact they are no less subject to corruption by power than the mone
y-grubbing capitalists they replace. Except that the public officials didn t have
to work to get the property and have no interest in its condition, so are the wo
rst landlords you ever had.

In its simplest form socialism consists of taking money from some people and giv
ing it to others. When you or I do that they call it theft no matter what we do
with the loot. When governments do it we use terms like, income redistribution and
transfer payments and price supports. We call it compassion. We call those who oppos
it mean-spirited. They call those who oppose it in places like Cuba el prisionero.
Because politicians can be sure of support from those who receive
y can safely take larger amounts from a working minority and pass
a little more thinly, to a voting majority, all the while taking
for expenses. That s the secret of a successful career in modern

the spoils the

out the booty,
a generous cut
politics.

As socialist systems mature however people must be controlled as well as their p

roperty. The working minority begins to chafe under the yoke. Marx believed soci
alism was a transition phase between capitalism and communism, a stop along the
way to having everything run by crack outfits like the KGB, BATF or the IRS. On
the evidence in the U.S., so far he s right.
There was once a real difference between Democrats and Republicans over socialis
m, but no longer. Now the only difference is who gets the loot and how to steal
it. Democrats clip us with higher taxes and inflation. They give our hard earned
pay to the poor, minorities, teachers, artists, and Marxist professors. Republi

cans shear us with inflation and borrowing. They give the plunder to farmers, ai
rlines, failing industries and camo-clad freedom fighters in faraway lands. Two th
irds of the federal budget is transfers from one group to another.
Socialism raises the question of slavery. A slave is one who is forced to act fo
r the benefit of another. When we force taxpayers to pay for someone else s drugs,
retirement, food or shelter or when we force taxpayers to subsidize airlines or
farmers we are forcing them to serve someone else. Forcing someone to work for
another is immoral. A little bit of slavery is still slavery.
Congressional representatives do not use their own money to do their good works.
They raise money the only way government can; they take it from working America
ns either by threats and intimidation with taxes or by deception with borrowing
and inflation.
All this cross subsidy is democracy in action, you might say. It s all perfectly l
egal. It s the will of the people. But because something is legal doesn t make it ri
ght. Slavery was legal. Apartheid was legal. Stalin s gulag was legal. China s mass
murder in Tiananmen Square was legal. Using legality as a moral beacon will lure
us onto treacherous moral shores.
Morality by majority decision would bring back lynching. Socialism is bringing b
ack slavery. Slavery Lite. You can hardly feel the chains.
Don t take my arguments against legalized theft as arguments against helping those
in need. Human kindness and charity are the noblest of instincts. Selfless givi
ng of what you rightfully own is the essence of charity, the heart of the Christ
ian paradox that tells us we must give in order to receive.
Boosting your neighbor s paycheck even to pay for good deeds is still just theft.
There is no moral argument for taking property from one citizen and giving it to
another. Neither is there a moral argument for accepting the stolen goods.
Using socialist principles to aid those in need is like pushing the guy next to
you off a pier to save a man drowning in the water below. Hollering, HANG ON, I M S
ENDING HELP, and getting the other guys on the pier to nod in agreement won t make
it work or make it right.