The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Socialism Sucks!

Socialism, or collectivism, is a consequence of a more fundamental philosophical mistake. This mistake is the opinion that you do not have a moral right to your own life, that you owe part of your life to others. This idea is called altruism, which is mistakenly thought to be a moral position. Well, the principle of altruism, if you wish to actually think about it, is one of self-sacrifice, that it is moral to sacrifice your life to others. This should be clearly distinguished from benevolence, charity or philanthropy. Let’s take destruction out of the picture all together. I’m not saying that it isn’t good to give to others, but it becomes immoral when it is given away at the expense of the self. And becomes all out criminal when it is given away against the will of the producer, by force. Taxes, no matter in what form, are FIRST and FOREMOST an attack against the rights of the individual. It is the individual that creates and produces. It is assault and theft to force him or her to give his or her money to the government, which will, by mob rule (democracy), decide where his or her hard earned money will go, minus the pay-offs that go to corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians and lobbyists. We are born, with a gun pointed at our heads, enslaved to each other and the Fed, in the name of goodwill towards others. This brings us all down and government up. And if you vote for the Republican or the Democratic party, it is your fault.

This universe operates according to physical laws, which are predictable and reproducible. And by our physical structure as human beings, our brains function similarly, in that every action we make is a result of neuronal processes that cannot be shared. We are autonomous organic machines. There is no collective brain, not literally. Metaphorically, sure. It is always through this individualistic nature that we relate to each other. And proper government is the necessary protection from one monopolizing bully to ensure we are left capable of taking care of ourselves and our decisions. Individuals function as such, by our nature, and liberty is being left free to do as you wish as long as someone bigger and stronger doesn’t infringe on your autonomy.

“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number is self protection.”

---On Liberty, John Stuart Mills, 1859

There is only one thing that you can interfere with or limit the liberty of someone for, one goal, one value gives you the right to interfere and it is self protection. Nothing else besides protecting yourself, not getting your kids a good education, not getting the government to build you a road to get to work, not anything except protecting you from bodily harm and that which leads to it. This is the only principle that allows you to interfere with another’s autonomy. To justify doing something to someone else, of harm, you must prove that their actions were going to cause direct harm to another. Being free means being able to act in your own self-interest except if we are going to hurt someone. I should not be able to get money from someone I don’t know, who doesn’t need an education for my children, or a road near my house or healthcare my doctor gives me to pay for it from the money he or she earned, that money which is necessary to sustain their life.

And as for altruism, hogwash. Tricking the masses of humans into believing self-sacrifice is good is one of the greatest evils of religion and theology (the study of one particular metaphor) that there is. Every decision every human being makes is always, every time, one based on, at least perceived, self-interest. Sustained sacrifice of an individual would necessarily result in their demise. People do good for others because it is in their perceived self-interest.

Agreeing that we all share in each other’s individuality is what socialism, of any kind and percentage, is suggesting. It is irrational and results in slavery. Every good thing that happens in the economy does so because of the individuals that did the work, not because of governmental oversight and restriction. The one necessary monopolizer of retaliatory force has no business in the lives of individuals, except to protect them from impingements on their liberty.

A proper, or moral, government serves only to function as a single monopolizer of retaliatory physical force, to protect us from criminals, foreign aggressors and settle domestic disputes in law courts. Schools, roads and medical care, like everything else, except police, military and judges, should come from the only way they can, private enterprise, i.e., individuals producing, instead of the government redistributing wealth, bringing everyone down by taking from those with ability and giving to those with need. The moral limited government can certainly be financed with voluntary taxation, donations or the government itself creating money honestly, like thousands of private companies do every day. I, sure as hell, would pay for the protection of the government.

But, what of the starving unfortunate people in the world? I’m sorry, but because someone is hungry, does not mean I have a moral responsibility to give them my bread. If you wish to truly help these people, good for you. I recommend that you do not sacrifice yourself to do it and I certainly do not wish for you or anyone else to force me to chip in. I’ll do so on my own, after I’ve made my first million. That would come sooner if the irrational people of this country would let me keep that which I have earned, instead of taking nearly 40% of it and giving to corporate CEO’s, banks, Iran or some community in BFE to save a field which some rare turtle happens to use as a path from their mating area to their nursery.

And if you think that Roosevelt’s New Deal, in the 1930’s, actually helped the economy, well then, you need to go back and research it yourself, instead of taking the word of some postmodernist university professor. It was the WWII, the military industrial complex war machine that Eisenhower warned us of , in his presidential farewell speech in 1961, and hard working Americans that got us out. Our country was never more economically successful and thriving, without artificial "bubbles" created by governmental price setting and special interest subsidies, as it was pre-income taxes, before the very early 20th century. We are still now, less and less, reaping the benefits of the industrial revolution and the American capitalistic work ethic created in the 18th and 19th centuries. The more the producers are penalized for producing and the poor are enabled by a welfare state, the quicker we will return to dictatorship and subsequent revolution. If we empower people, by valuing individual rights, to earn and keep their own shit, standard of living would go up and the ignorant and lazy would stop multiplying as much. We enable them with the welfare state. The government cannot supply value or virtue, only make them possible by providing freedom.

Nowhere in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution does it suggest that we should be forced to give up some of our individual rights to give to the so-called good of the people. The reason we became an independent nation to begin with was to be able to keep what we make and not have to answer to some arbitrary authority. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would be shitting in their pants right now if they were here to see this crap.

Tags: America, Assault, Capitalism, Debt, Freedom, Individual, Liberty, Slavery, Socialism, States, More…The, United, of

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Alice on April 11, 2011 at 9:58pm: We are victims to the machinery of government / society / institutions / our mother culture

We feel oppressed / used / prisoners born into this jail

Autonomy is of value

Protection from bodily harm is of value

Why should you pay for another persons needs – who is not even known to you?

Believe self-sacrifice is good is a trick and evil of religion and theology.

Starving people you don’t know are not your problem. It’s not your moral responsibility to feed them.

Other species are not important to protect.

You say that you don’t want to be forced to pay for others.

The way I see it – you are in the system – the system pays you – you don’t earn the amount of money they say you will get – they only give it too you on condition that you pay the tax – they are all the system – it’s not the hospital you work for is different and outside of this economy.

The economy you are in is a make products – sell products – buy products system. You are right in it when you go to work every day for money – you provide a product / service – you get money that allows you to buy products and services.

The American constitution is indeed a great idea – although altruistic in nature – due to it’s expectation that we can all live up to these high ideals. We can’t. Everyone breaks the law all the time.

You say that you are selfish and we all are – I agree we develop strategies that support ourselves.

You say that you don’t want to support others in the system who you don’t know and don’t care about including both humans and other species of animal.

Can I ask – if your father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, or other relative had a need – would or are you be prepared to help them?

I wonder if your individualism isn’t so individual when it comes to family or close friends or partners.

Perhaps there is another economy in your life not about products and money – but about support – you support some people in your lives, not because you get money or products for doing so, but because you might love or care for them. And also because selfishly you know that they have given you support in the past – they have protected you, fed you, or otherwise met your basic needs.

If this were the case – then perhaps you might agree that you would prefer a system that involved you being able to work in a small group of extended family and close friends – where you all cared for each other – for protection and for better access to finding food to share.

Or perhaps you believe that this is not needed and in fact you can go to work in the system, get your money and keep it for yourself – in order to pay for your needs to be met – for food, shelter, medicine, love?

Comment by MCT on February 1, 2011 at 7:38pm: RVS,

How can individual rights limit the freedom of individuals? You mean their not free to have other people's money? That's not their right. Not free to have the means of survival provided for them by others? Socialism, in any form, is first and foremost an immoral attack on the individual.

Comment by MCT on February 1, 2011 at 7:34pm: GR,
I think you misunderstand what altruism is. At least, what I think is the correct understanding of it. Of course we do things that are beneficial to others. I would even consider many of them moral. Did you not read the post you just commented on? Favoring your kin and scratching one's back that scratches yours are both in the interest of the person who morally chooses those things. I am defining altruism as sacrifice of one's self, not just having mutual respect and compassion for others. Humans are acting in an egoistic way, when they give their last piece of bread to their kids. This is in their self interest. I am less concerned about what ants and bees do. We must use reason to live. They don't have ethics. No matter what decision a person makes is on their own behalf, even if that entails giving up your last piece of bread to someone you care about and want to see have that food. This is moral.

And I don't think I will be less acerbic as long as I am immorally held at gun point to give up the means of my living, by people like you, which I do realize is most people. I will not decrease my certainty to make room for irrationality. Individuals create, government gets in the way. Government should only protect individual rights. Special interest groups corrupt. Other than giving government the power to protect, the smaller the government, the better. People eventually won't need government, if we stop ramming it down their throats.

Comment by Rob van Senten on February 1, 2011 at 10:27am: Michael,

Some forms of collectivism are a necessity in my opinion, we do need roads, barriers against the water (I'm Dutch) and so on. We attempt to collectively solve perceived problems that are created within our society for our own benefit and those of others. I would think that the cost of solving problems collectively is measured in how much the freedoms of the individual are limited.

To me, the outcome of collectivism is what determines whether it is good or bad. If the sacrifice of individual liberty is too great I would consider a collective obligation to be bad and vice versa.

If we empower people, by valuing individual rights, to earn and keep their own shit, standard of living would go up and the ignorant and lazy would stop multiplying as much.

That is a possibility. However the children of the ignorant and lazy do not hold responsibility for the mistakes of their parents. They do however are presented with the consequences of their upbringing and might need additional help to function in society. A potential risk of not creating a safety net for these people is that they are left with limited choices to function in society and as such, this may lead to an increase in criminal behavior.

Furthermore, you could argue that if there are no safety nets (wealth distribution etc.) in place then it might be beneficial to parents that are not in a privileged position in society to actually bear more children. Their children might provide them with a future income after all.

Difficult subject, I would like to think that there are many things that I as an individual cannot accomplish alone for which I need the assistance of my fellow man. The individual liberties that I sacrifice to the "greater good" are to be watched and measured carefully. However, socialism and/or collectivism are not bad in essence, only in practice when the balance between what is gained for society and lost by the individual is lost.

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on February 1, 2011 at 9:47am: Socialism, capitalism and libertarianism have meritorious attributes. Likewise deficiencies. Idealogues of any school are off base. I would like to see hybrid government.

Comment by Gary Renegar on February 1, 2011 at 8:44am: Responding specifically to your view of altruism as being a negative force I, and others such as Richard Dawkins, W.D. Hamilton, Robert Hinde et. all would disagree and propose that altruism both at the genetic and non-genetic level are crucial to the survival of species, and not just our own. The following excerpt is from R. Dawkin's the God Delusion:

"There are circumstances - not particularly rare - in which genes ensure their own selfish survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically. These circumstances are now fairly well understood and they fall into two main categories. A gene that programs individual organisms to favour their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself. Such a gene's frequency can increase in the gene pool to the point where kin altruism becomes the norm. Being good to one's own children is the obvious example but not the only one. Bees, wasps, ants, termites and, to a lesser extent, certain vertebrates have evolved societies in which elderly siblings care for younger siblings (with whom they are likely to share genes for doing the caring). In general...animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of danger, or otherwise show altruism toward close kin because of the statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes. The other main type if altruism for which we have a well worked out Darwinian rationale is reciprocal altruism ('You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours). This theory does not depend upon shared genes. Indeed it works just as well, probably even better, between members of widely different species, where it is often called symbiosis. The principle is the basis of all trade and barter between humans too. Kinship and reciprocation are twin pillars in a Darwinian world."

As for your political opinions, those, of course, belong to you and though I and others would disagree with many of your basic tenets, it is your right to express them as you see fit. On a personal note, and without criticism, I would hope that your world opinion becomes less acerbic and less certain of both the social and political reasons you describe as responsible for the success and failures we have all witnessed, though not necessarily as you have painted them.