Liberty a Gift, Socialism a Disease
I heard a great quote from talkshow host Mark Levin the other day:
“Liberty is a gift from God. Socialism is a disease invented by man.”
When Mark says “socialism” he means both socialism and communism; since they are both fruits from the same poisoned tree (of humanism and materialism) and one is just a more radical version of the other.
You can find out more about Mark Levin on his site: http://www.marklevinshow.com. He’s a staunch conservative, a straight shooter, insightful critic, and a very funny commentator. Love him!
Friday 22 Feb 2008 | Banescu | Freedom, Communism |
What do you think he means by “socialism?”
I always find quotations such as that confusing. I start listing programs that are of great help to people, that also would seem to fall in the general category of “socialism,” whereupon I’m told “oh no, we’re not talking about those.”
The classic example is state Medicaid programs that pay for nursing home care for elderly, sick, and disabled people. Those clearly involve the transfer of income from some people to others. But even people who oppose “socialism” seem to have no problem with that program. And there are many similar programs.
So when people say they are against “socialism,” it’s not clear exactly what they are against. Any ideas?
There is a new book out there:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg
Fascism is also socialistic. Based upon my reading of history, fascism has a far deeper hold on the American pysche than does communisim. It can appear to be quite “capitalistic” and allow the illusion of choice. It can even encourage and allow “religion” as long as it remains the legalistic kind.
Whatever one calls it, statism is really the idea that is inimical to freedom. We have to remember though that freedom is not getting what we want or doing what we want to do, that’s hedonism it feeds into the fascistic impluse that the state should decide and enforce what is “good for us”.
Just remember, whatever power we give to the governement will sooner or later be used against us.
Jim, IMO “socialism” is not really about any specific type of program or even using tax dollars to pay for social programs. It is about the idea that the state, the collective, knows better than the individual how to to make decisions about what is “good for us” It is about institutionalizing such programs and requiring people to take part in them OR ELSE. It is about the entitlement mentality. Each program funded by tax dollars should be re-evaluated on a periodic basis and re-authorized.
The communistic OR ELSE tends to be more harsh than the socialist OR ELSE
Social Darwinism is also a disease invented by man.
Both stem from a faulty anthropology that considers man as the measure of all things, autonomous. The authoritarian polticial/economic ideologies such as socialism, communisim look at man as being in need of instruction, unable to fend properly for ourselves and so attempt to force people into a collective–worth is defined by one’s usefulness to the collective.
Social Dawinism and some breeds of libertarianism, essentially believe in the perfectability of man by our own devices. They tend to promote the atomistic idea of individualism and self-sufficiency at the expense of genuine community. Worth is assigned solely by the ability to compete economically, agreement wiith a particular set of ideas, etc.
Both types of ideologies can and do set up “devils” to rally the troops against and maintain cohesion. A dictatorship based on social darwinism is kinda of an oxymoron, but it can certainly lead into the Superman idea of the nihilists.
Fascism takes the worst ideas from both camps.
Any concept of liberty or authority that is not founded on love of God will ultimately devolve into some sort of tryanny even if it is called Christian.
In response to the examples Jim quoted…
Socialism is the idea the the state (the collective, the group, the society) owns everything. The state may, in its wisdom and magnanamity, permit individuals to profit, in some small way, from their initiative and enterprise. It may, but doesn’t have to. In addition, the state owns the right to dictate what individuals or groups may say, publish, and think.
Liberty is the system in which individuals own property, as well as their opinion and expressions of it, and may choose to contribute to the common good as they see fit.
I think Jim is correct to give these examples of socialism that we don’t want to admit are socialism. I think there is a spectrum, with socialism and liberty at the two ends. We are, in fact, somewhere in the middle.
It gets really troublesome when the state interferes in what people may say, think, and publish, or when it engineers and maintains a monopoly in these matters.
As far as I can tell, there are at least three different views of what “socialism” is:
1) government ownership of the means of production (the major industries) and a centrally planned economy.
2) bringing about large-scale economic equality through redistribution of income.
3) the government ensuring that the vital needs of people are met through redistribution of income.
I think most social programs fall into category 3), and as far as I can tell most of the people here don’t have a problem with these programs as long as
a) the programs are reasonably well-run, and
b) the concept of “vital needs” is not too broadly defined, and
c) the programs are affordable, and
d) the overall effects of the programs are positive.
I think most people here would oppose versions 1) and 2), but would support version 3), with the above provisions. Is that a fair summary?
Jim, “redistribution of income” is socialism. The very idea is pure communism and inherently evil and discriminatory. Remove that element and replace it with voluntary giving and a fair (flat) tax that does not punish the producers, business owners, entrepreneurs, working folks, risk takers, etc., and you being to come closer to what should be happening.
Chris, so is any taxation inherently evil, or is it the level of taxation you disapprove of? When is taxation reasonable and when does it become unjust? Is it a percentage? Does the cost of living and the price of basic necessities come to bear on this at all or not?
Now, I have no children, yet some of my income is taken from me so that other people’s children can go to school. Now, I’m not going to suggest that all public schools are equal (they’re not), but I don’t have an issue paying to educate the next generation, since I think I do have a stake in their well-being, even if indirectly. Some of the public schools in my area are quite fine: they are rigorous, challenging and believe in discipline. From what I can tell, they have done a good job in raising decent, productive young adults. Do you think this should be irrelevant to me as I have no children of my own?
From the looks of your post, it reads as if you oppose any person being charged through taxation for any goods and services they do not personally use. Is this correct? This just seems extreme.
James, Please read what I actually wrote, it’s right there in plain English, you know the former official language of this nation.
Yes, punitive taxation for purposes of “redistribution of income” and progressively punish achievement and productivity is evil.
James, I’ll clarify the issue further. I already posted this analysis before, but I’m reposting it again since I believe it may be helpful for you to understand why punitive taxation schemes are grossly unethical and evil.
There are 3 and only 3 ways for anyone in life to have/obtain value (monetary or economic) or acquire any asset to be able to live or sustain oneself or one’s family:
(1) you ethically earn it (by working and providing value to your employer, or risking it in a venture to provide new value to others via a service or product) = Ethical Capitalism
(2) you steal it from others or someone else (individual, institution, or government) steals it on your behalf = Criminals, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, American government (federal, state and local), Robin Hood, the Sopranos, the Mafia, etc..
(3) someone voluntarily gives it to you = Charity (Christian or otherwise) NOTE however, that in order for someone (individual, government, church, institution, etc..) to have the money/asset to give it to you they also must attain it via #1 or #2
Notice that the only fair, ethical, and voluntary model that is based fully on freedom and the greatest respect for the individual is #1. (NOTE: I did not include unethical, lying, criminal, or abusive individuals, executives, and companies that do not practice ethical capitalism.)
Chris, what is your solution for those who cannot (a) provide for themselves and have no (c) offers for private charity? Now, I’m sure that there are many people who can provide for themselves who are on the government dole. This is where reform is needed. However, I do know of people who cannot provide for themselves in even the most menial of jobs due to illness or other circumstances. If private charity cannot come up with the funds for their basic expenses for staying alive, what is your suggestion for them? Allow death to overtake them rather than be a “burden on society”?
James, Do you have an issue with reading comprehension? Where in the world are you reading this from? We’re talking about PUNITIVE TAXATION and you go off the farm making up arguments and positions NONE of us have made or taken. If you expect to participate here please stay focused and pay attention to the threads. I’m not going to waste my time dragging the discussion back to the topic at hand.
I can read, Chris. I’m asking you for the definition of “punitive taxation”. Is it a percentage or is it the reasons behind the taxation?
James, Now you are asking a question on topic. Earlier you were just posting unjustified innuendo. Punitive Taxation, is an unfair and unethical taxation scheme, also known as a progressive taxation scheme, like the one we have had in the US for many decades. This is due to the re-definition of our language that equates “fairness” with the exact opposite of the meaning of the word.
More on the flat tax from the Heritage Foundation:
Because I spend much less of a percentage of my income on basic necessities such as food, gas and clothing than many, I can afford to shelter more of my income from taxes in the form of 401Ks and other retirement plans. After all, a gallon of gas costs the same for me as it does for everyone else. Also, since I own a home, I can deduct quite a bit for the interest paid on the home. So, I really do not pay the amount of tax that someone in my income level is “supposed” to pay.
This flat tax would, at least at first glance, increase my taxes. How is this fair, exactly? For a plan that is supposed to be anti-socialistic by not penalizing those who make more money, the flat tax would in fact penalize someone like me who makes an above-average income. Who are you thinking this would help?
The current tax code is complicated, but it’s not that complicated. If you think the housing market is bad right now, try to consider what would happen if the deduction incentive was removed entirely.
Sorry, but I don’t think this has been thought out at all.
Sorry James, but you have not thought this through at all. You are blind to reality, fairnes (real, not the biased and false one the liberals embrace), the real meaning of liberty, and to economics.
Here’s another reality check for you. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that no matter how many facts and objective arguments, real life success stories, and information we provide, you will ignore them.
Flat Tax is the Way of the Future
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032006a.cfm
More success stories of ENTIRE countries adopting a Flat Tax.
Flat Tax is the Way of the Future
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032006a.cfm
Enough “proof” for you James?
Chris, I have no opposition to the concept of a flat tax, but it’s going to take more than a philosophy to convince me that a flat tax (good as it sounds) would not be more harmful than helpful.
It does no good to compare our economy to that of developing nations who were previously being taxed at 35-50% rates and where tax evasion and non-compliance were extraordinarily high. We would be working within much smaller margins.
If a family of four making $80,000/year (which is above the median, although by no means to be considered affluent) ends up paying more in taxes than they were, I’m not sure how that should be considered “fair”. Fair to whom?
IOW, show us numbers: give us real-world scenarios of Americans (not Estonians), what they’re making, what their deductions and exemptions are and what they would be paying under a flat-tax system, and I think more of us would be willing to jump on board.
By the way, in terms of Estonia:
James, Thank you, for once again proving to us that facts to a liberal are like holy water to a vampire. It is hilarious to see the contortions and mental gymnastics you go through to ignore the truth!
Also, it’s very funny how you tried to use quotes from The Heritage Foundationt to attack the Flat Tax idea and somehow missed one of the best articles and arguments for using a Flat Tax made by The Heritage Foundation. The irony is simply delicious! I haven’t had this much fun since watching the Global Warming Cultists trying to desperately rationalize — without any objective scientific experiments showing direct cause and effect — how CO2 at 0.037% of our atmosphere “causes” a majority of the “global warming”, while the sun’s energy and the solar cycles are ignored. 
This is exactly the reason why this Blog is now moderated. Conservatives are really tired of trying to argue and make points to individuals who are not really interested in a meaningful, objective and substantive debate. You never acknowledge any of the evidence, objective proof, and arguments conservatives make no matter how voluminous the data or solid the track record. Moving on to a higher level of discussion now…. I’ve already made my point in spades!
Chris, You’re wasting your breath trying to convince leftists and socialists that more freedom and more money in the hands of people and those who produce actually HELPS the POOR more than the punishing tax scheme the US has struggled with for decades. Nothing you say and no amount of persuasive documentation will convince those that believe punishing success and productivity is “the only way” to run an economy and a country.
Never mind the lessons of Ronald Reagan (Fed Tax rates from 70% to 28% and gov’t revenues DOUBLED in a few years). Never mind that John F. Kennedy had the same views as Reagan on taxes. Never mind that Ireland chose a flat tax to rescue its economy and drastically reduce its unemployment rate. Never mind that nearly a dozen countries have had fantastic results that benefited the people and helped everyone! Never mind the prosperity and benefits, especially the poor and the disadvantaged receive, that flow when tax burdens are reduced, revenues skyrocket (natural result) and real fairness (Flat Tax systems) are implemented by entire nations. Never mind that simple economics and human nature work best with true fair and flat taxation. It’s no use, they will never admit the truth or give up on their ideology. It’s just too hard and common sensical.
It is not about helping the poor and never has been. It is simply about the elite exercising power. In case you’ve forgotten that’s what politics of any persuasion is ultimately about: obtaining, keeping and exercising power. The rest is demogogery.
#17 JamesK:
“If a family of four making $80,000/year (which is above the median, although by no means to be considered affluent) ends up paying more in taxes than they were, I’m not sure how that should be considered “fair”. Fair to whom?”
Your percentage tax rate would likely go down in a flat-tax system, so you would very likely not end up paying more tax than you do now (read Mr. Banescu’s posts above).
Also, tax evasion is a real problem in the U.S. I’ve read that 1/3 of people actually underpay their income tax. And the burden in terms of accounting, audits, legal fees, etc., is in the billions of dollars. Both the cheating and the industry that has grown up around the paperwork are huge weights on our economy and tax revenues, and a flat tax (or a national sales tax) would for the most part eliminate them.
George D, It would eliminate the burdensome industry and paperwork for about one Congress then the plutocrats we keep electing would simply not be able to resist the urge to tamper, making policy by writing tax law. Once again the tax code would balloon to an unmanageable and indecipherable mess.
The whine would be as JamesK has already demonstrated: “It just not faaaaaaair!” God save us from eqalitarianism and “fairness”. There is no such thing as fair. It is a utopian pipe dream in this life.
God is the only one who is really fair because He loves perfectly. For the rest of us we spend our lives discriminating (part of the curse of the knowlege of good and evil before we were ready for it), discerning and seeking advantage. It is precisely that which makes central planning and government distribution the least fair.
#22 Mr. Bauman:
I tend to agree, and I think at least two forces are at work.
First, liberty is not the typical state of affairs. Many people want to be controlled. I think this is why communism, socialism, Islam, etc., appeal to so many leftists. Those utopian systems provide a high degree of economic and/or social control.
Second, as near as I can tell, Americans no longer place much value on virtue, cannot exercise self-restraint, and have forgotten their history. We can expect similar qualities from elected officials, or worse yet, devious elected officials who can manipulate the corrupt masses.
Michael writes: “There is no such thing as fair. It is a utopian pipe dream in this life.”
I thought the incentive for the flat tax was to alleviate the injustice done to those who make more, no?
Look, if you want to say “5% tax across the board”, I wouldn’t necessarily have any opposition to it right off the bat. I’m no socialist (accusations notwithstanding), and I’d like to keep as much of my money as I can. However, we would have to cut government spending. That’s fine, too, but where are you going to make those cuts? The military? Transportation? You tell me. How much would those cuts be? No one seems interested in asking these questions, yet they seem so obvious to me.
I doubt this will be posted because questions apparently offend the sensibilities of those who prefer to live in the abstract, but it would be nice for someone to at least attempt to address the economic impact that would occur should a flat tax be implemented with something other than “likely’s” and “maybes”.
James, Let’s settle (it won’t but I’m forever the optimist) this once and for all by answering this very simple question: Do you think that people and businesses would work just as hard and produce just as much under a 10% or 15% tax rate as they would under a 70% or 80% tax rate?
(PS - That’s leaving out the 6.6 billion (with a “B”) wasted man hours every year and the productivity sucking black hole created by the idiotic, convoluted, completely arbitrary, and useless tax compliance dance of this form, comply with that rule, take that deduction, here’s the receipt, there’s the receipt, etc. etc… that tens of millions of individuals and entities who are forced to and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to enhance anyone’s life, help the poor, support the elderly and disabled, create anything meaningful, solve problems, build infrastructure, cure diseases, improve education, etc. etc. etc..)
D. George, corruption is the key and you are correct, the politicians don’t make us corrupt, we want what the corrupt politicians promise us. It’s the old saying, “You can’t con and honest man”
Virtue stems from a willingness to sacrifice one’s own desires for the good of others. Virture is required for self-government. In fact, IMO, virtue is self-government.
I also agree that most people don’t really want liberty, we just want to be taken care of.
Chris asks: “Do you think that people and businesses would work just as hard and produce just as much under a 10% or 15% tax rate as they would under a 70% or 80% tax rate?”
I don’t really disagree with you. Human nature being what it is, I would think that if it were known that the government was taking most of your income, most people would probably put less effort in their work. What would be the point of breaking your back, since it’s all going out the window, anyhow, right? Thus, the improvements in places like Estonia where they went from 50% tax rates to the much-reduced rates they have now. (However, I don’t think one’s pay is always an indicator of how seriously one takes their work or their integrity in doing their jobs, especially if their current position promises to increase the likelihood of future upward mobility.)
However, these aren’t the sort of numbers that would actually be used in a flat tax scenario, at least in this country. Yes, you could cut the taxes of the very wealthy (which I’m not opposed to), but what about the rest? Are you talking about a reduction? An increase? After deductions, people are generally paying anywhere from 5-25% of their income in taxes, depending on business expenses, education expenses, mortgages and so forth. That’s a decent margin.
I know plenty of people who’ve worked hard for their six-figure incomes who, because of deductions, investments, charitable donations and other itemizations pay probably less than 10% of their income in federal taxes. Are you proposing we increase their taxes if we set a flat rate at 20%? Are you proposing that a flat tax only be applied to those who it would affect positively (essentially “closing the gap” a bit between the upper and lower tax bracket percentages)?
I’m just trying to understand what the practical implications of this proposal actually are, and as of yet, no one wants to provide that. All I’m getting is ideology.
If a flat tax may very well increase taxes for a large number of people, it needs to be stated clearly and openly. “Yes, taxes will increase for some, but we do it for the sake of ‘justice’”. At this point, I honestly don’t think that the flat-taxers have enough information to say either way.
Own up to what your proposal is, here, that’s all I’m asking.
James, You’re living in a dream world of your own creation. This comment alone shows how clueless you really are:
Are you purposely playing dumb? Ronald Reagan cut the marginal Federal Tax rates from 70% to 28% and Revenues DOUBLED!!! We should go to a 15% Flat Tax rate and get rid of the IRS and the 10,000 pages of isanity. Specific enough for you? If a reduction from 70% to 28% doubled revenues, then a reduction from 35% to 15% plus the freeing up 6.6 BILLION man hours of productivity should easily DOUBLE them and then some. Never mind the increased economic activity and investments that will skyrocket under such a CAPITAL-Friendly and FREEDOM-friendly scenario.
Also, I provided you nearly a DOZEN countries that are SUCCESSFUL with Flat Tax Rates less than 20% and you still deny the evidence. It works!
I now fully understand why Coulter, Rush, Horrowitz, Levin, and all the other solid conservatives are so exasperated with liberals and leftists. You never, ever, ever admit any objective proof and hard evidence someone provides. To you, it’s all about ideology. Even when you ask us to “show you” and “prove it” and the moment we do, you deny the very evidence we provide and change the subject.
Liberals never, ever can say “YES” to common sense and pratical ideas that work, let alone those proposed by conservatives. This is hilarious!
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm
So those who are paying 10% of their income taxes should see a 5% increase. So you FAVOR an increase of taxes for many Americans.
I’m glad I nailed that down.
Thanks!!
You’ve got a point James, you’ve convinced me, we should go with a 10% Flat Tax. I knew you would come around eventually, I just didn’t think it would be that quickly.