Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on November 19, 2008 By Draginol In Politics

Great article by Walter E. Williams that helps explain why socialism is a fundamentally evil concept.

I'd go even further and say it's also insipid because its supporters actually believe that supporting socialism actually makes them morally superior.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Read the whole thing: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/11/19/evil_concealed_by_money


Comments (Page 6)
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6 
on Dec 01, 2008

It's a bit more difficult than that.

Agreed - I was giving the 2 cent view.  But what you say is the reason that Minimum wages cost jobs, and do not create them.  It is a nice gesture to "give" people more for the same work, but if it becomes unaffordable, then the employer just does without.  And the person loses the job.




stevendedalus
comment 73
Tell that to the Founding Fathers who got rich on the back of slavery.



The Founding Fathers were not subsistance famers. Do you even know what subsistance means?

Also not technically true.  The reason slavery disappeared in Europe before there was a war was due to simple economics.  You invested in a slave (think of them as machines if you want), so you protected your investment.  WHile you did not pay them a salary, you still had to cloth and feed them (and provide shelter).  And keep them healthy.  Slavery was not a means to wealth - the owners were already wealthy (and that is why they could afford slaves).  It was a way to force workers to relocate to where the jobs were or the work needed.

6 PagesFirst 4 5 6