MOCKBADOC: "Socialism, more specifically inc0me redistribution (the seizing of one citizen's property for the purpose of giving it to another citizen) is cowardly."
Typical, mindless, backbiting, sniping, cowardly, stupid socialist liberal (a.k.a. flowerchild): "How can you say that? Some of the best countries in the world are socialist - like France, the U.K, our dear neighbor to the north, Canada...pretty much all our allies. Are you literally calling their people and their goverments cowards?!?. Are you?"
MOCKBADOC: "Umm. Yes. Actually, yes. That is exactly what I am saying."
flowerchild: "I can't believe my ears. You are really going to have to back this up, dude."
MOCKBADOC: "I'll be glad to try, but I doubt seriously that a communist sympathizer like yourself will be willing to listen. Nevertheless, I love a challenge, so here goes.
Resolved: Socialists are Cowards. I submit that socialism is the misguided attempt to remove the element of risk from life. Socialized medicine makes everyone have the same crappy healthcare. Why? Because socialists would rather give everyone lousy health care, just so long as they all have some of that lousy health care. By promising people that despite their circumstances, they will never have to fear for anything, they simultaneously (1) align themselves eternally with all lazy and unmotivated people, (2) give themselves a vested interest in creating ever more lazy, unmotivated, dependent-type people, and (3) have to come up with a way to pay for these ever-increasing promises. The last part is easy enough, at least for a while. They'll just take it from someone else.
In conclusion, socialists are cowards because (but not only because):
(a) they refuse to confront either themselves or their constituents with the hard facts of life for the grown-up world that
(1) life is difficult and risky and
(2) sometimes you have to look someone right in the eye and ask for help like an adult, and
(3) stealing is wrong, even if it is done through subterfuge and obfuscation by way of your socialist congressman,
(b) they have created a self-perpetuating machine of dependency that will guarantee their continuation in government long beyond the natural time of death of their ridiculous philosophy, and
(c) they know how viscerally we, as freedom-loving people, detest their sick and twisted philosophy because it is antithetical to all that we stand for and have ever stood for, they always hide their true intentions which include the creation of an omnipotent central government (run by them, of course) and taking and giving as they see fit, without regard to fairness or equity, but instead with regard to what serves them best.
flowerchild: Good Lord. Where do I begin? Let's start with the first point. I'm not sure that socialists are trying to save everybody from risk, but nevertheless...Isn't the quest to remove all risk and fear from people's lives a noble one? Surely you can see the wisdom in trying to do that, right?
MOCKBADOC: It is an illusion, and a dangerous one. First of all, let's be accurate. When you take money from someone who makes more, you've just increased their risk. It would be pretty silly for someone to argue that you should work your tail off and go into debt just simply to get to a place where the socialists take half of everything you and your family have, right? That isn't fair. It is favorable to one group of people over another. It is exactly like racism, except that is is based on class. In the same way that you would agree with me that there shouldn't be "Whites Only" drinking fountains or "Irish need not apply" places of employment, then surely there shouldn't be "Poor Only" elements of government. Our government shouldn't show favoritism to anyone, regardless of age, race, ethnicity, sex, gender...or income." And no. It is never noble to take from one to give to another. It neither ensures equity (one has been disenfranchised in favor of another) nor the nobility of the recipient. One who depends on and is beholden to another forever for their very existence is no longer a citizen - he is a slave."
flowerchild: "Slave? Okay now. That's a bit strong, don't you think?"
MOCKBADOC: "I certainly don't think so. But you tell me - what's your definition of a slave?"
flowerchild: "A slave is:
(1) a person held in servitude as the chattel (property) of another or
(2) one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the rich are slaves under socialism, are you?"
MOCKBADOC: Surprisingly, no. I am suggesting that everyone is a slave under socialism. The poor are slaves because they are quite literally held as the property of the government. They have no hope of success by their own hard work or merits. Conversely, their only hope to avoid total ruin is the continuation of the government that feeds, clothes, and shelters them. In this way, they are robbed of their free-will and their potential, and become enslaved.
The so-called "rich" under socialism, on the other hand, have been allowed only the illusion of riches and self-determination, only to have them taken away at the whim of the government. In this sense, the entrepeneur is the slave of the masses. If the poor outnumber the rich, then the poor have the power to simply vote the entrepeneur into the poor-house. This kind of power over another is nothing if not slavery."
flowerchild: "That is a bit stark, I think. That kind of power is simply our democracy at work. That is hardly slavery."
MOCKBADOC: "I disagree on both points. First of all, we were never founded as a democracy as is often uncorrectly suggested, but as a Constitutional Representative Republic. Under this form of government, the power does not simply rest with the majority - a circumstance that was foreseen by the Founders to have exactly this kind of effect - but is shared between the people individually and collectively through a brilliant system of houses and branches of government, so that the desires of the masses are tempered by the also-important needs of the nation as a whole, then are made (ideally) to be consistent with the intention of the Constitution. We are not a democracy. We never have been. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
Secondly, I would ask you this question. How much slavery is too much? Is a little bit of slavery okay? How much is okay? How much institutional racism is okay? It is impossible to define, isn't it. The correct answer is that no amount of slavery or racism or domination or tyranny on the part of our government toward any single citizen is okay. We must fight slavery, racism, and tyranny at each and every moment we find it in ourselves or in our government. Imprisoning or enslaving people because you have no faith in their ability to do it for themselves is elitist, condescending, and contradictory to our way of life. Every person should be seen equally in the eyes of the law and government.
Furthermore, don't blame democracy for the state of affairs. At one time in this country, a majority could be found that thought that black people were not smart enough to vote, hold office, etc. Was that okay, just because the majority thought it? Clearly it was not. We must fight the tyranny of the majority as well as the tyranny of the minority. Our government, as originally intended, allowed for this. Unfortunately it has been slowly destroyed and rendered nearly useless to anyone but those who run it.
To be so afraid of loosening the chains on the rich and the poor alike, socialists are truly cowards."
flowerchild: "What about the people that live under socialism but don't run it? Are they cowards, too?"
MOCKBADOC: "Only if they embrace it and do not fight it. If you are okay with having a bully steal another kid's lunch money and give it to you because he likes you better, then you are a coward. If you continue to empower that bully over years and years, then you are an unrepentant coward. If you refuse to recognize that it is wrong to bully anyone and take their lunch money to give it to their friends, that it is wrong to take from one and give to another using only your own sense of justice as a guide to what is fair and what isn't, then you are the worst kind of coward. You are a socialist (Democrat). You have no right to decide who deserves and who doesn't deserve. Who are you to make these kinds of decisions? How can you be so egotistical and sure of yourself?"
flowerchild: "Well, if you are so smart, then...how are we ever going to empower the less-fortunate?"
MOCKBADOC: "We can't. Who ever started this whole thing about one person being able to empower someone else anyway? Each person must do everything in his or her power to empower him- or herself. When there are shortfalls, that's what families and communities and religious organizations are for. Not giant unwieldy, impenetrable beaureacracies. All governments have to do is get the heck out of the way. People are capable of amazing things if simply allowed to thrive and required to pull their weight. If it were not so, the human race surely would have died thousands of years ago."
To be continued. Next issue - Socialists are Atheists.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment