Secondary Problems of Socialism

Posted 9/26/05

There are many patterns that I've attempted to document throughout this website, underlying trends that disturbingly and constantly repeat, but I've come the realization that I've neglected to address one of the more fundamental characteristics of socialism.

Justice Janie Rogers Brown said:

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

Now, this is true, but the effects of socialism are debilitating beyond their immediate impact zone. More often than not, the indirect effects of Socialism are the target of attack by Conservatives, apolitical Americans, and, ironically, Liberals, most probably because of the immediate, obvious, and emotional nature of the issues. However, these are fights that cannot generate a winner. You cannot bail out a sinking boat with a small cup or a big spoon and treating symptoms is no way to approach curing the disease. Let me elaborate:

Federal Judge Declares Pledge Unconstitutional

9/14/05 CNN U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

There has been a torrent of outrage from the Right about this, in fact, I bet most Democrats also think this judge has gone over the line. Why do they think this and why are they angry? Because they like the Pledge how it is. But popular opinion should not dictate judicial philosophy. One of the most important characteristics of a Republic, as opposed to a runway, majority rules, democracy, is that the rights of the minority are protected. Socialism never protects the rights of the minority and this is nowhere more apparent than in our socialistic public education system.

    Socialism has spawned the problem because, under the Constitution, Newdow and the parents he is representing have a right to raise their children in ways consistent with their own values and should be allowed to do so free of government coercion. His point, that he is forced to pay tax money to an institution that flagrantly defies his values, is completely valid. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said:
    "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
    Now, on the other side, we have the vast majority of Americans who don't have a problem with 'Under God' and don't mind it being in public schools. Yet, some of these parents have problems with evolution being taught in school and sex/ed etc.. etc.. Their rights are being violated in the same way as Newdow's - opinions they abhor are being taught to their own children with their own tax money. Both of these aberrations are equally repulsive.
    To profess an opinion, or develop legal arguments, one way or the other in regards to either of these issues is besides the point and counterproductive as it misses the bigger picture: socialism of public schools. If charter schools/school choice existed (or government was completely removed from education), then no one could complain about the happenings in the school their kids attend because no one is forced to send their kids to any particular school.
    But our public schools are not run by parents, or businessmen seeking customers, they are run by the government: local, state, and increasingly and most unfortunately, Federal, and so they are not free from political control. Thus, these problem exists. Both Newdow and other parents who disagree with any aspect of the public education forced on their kids should join forces to destroy educational socialism. Yet, because of superficial differing ideology, an alliance of this nature appears to be most difficult.

President Calls for a Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
2/04 White House Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Most Americans, but not the Liberal National Media, support the President's position on gay marriage. But, more fundamentally, why does this issue exist? It exists because of the socialization of marriage. How, you ask, is marriage socialized? Because it is government managed, government sanctioned, government licensed, government defined, and government subsidized, and thus, is not free from political control. Marriage is socialized because it is not defined by, the people, the churches, or other private organizations, but by the government. Marriage brings all sorts of tax benefits, inheritance benefits, health benefits and so forth. Some of these are generated by private companies, but many/most are sanctioned, or at least influenced, by government. Government should not be defining marriage, or giving out tax breaks for it, or utilizing the term in any regulatory way. Without government, there is no debate; the partisan, raucous, and often uncivil debate on gay marriage is moot.

But, without government, who will define marriage? Well, the people will! Who knows how it will turn out; doubtlessly a large majority of churches will not recognize gay marriage and that is their prerogative to do so. Other churches will recognize it. Gay people can recognize their own marriages, other people can if they so choose. And the institutions don't have to be churches, there should be no 'marriage licenses' or 'certificates', that are now required. Marriage is a right and 'we the people' can regulate it how we wish, without government interference or coercion. The gay marriage debate is another secondary problem of socialism.

Senate Republicans to Yank Welcome Mat For Illegal Aliens

9/13/05 Associated Press "We cannot afford to take care of everybody," Johnson said in a news conference with Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock, whose bill to prohibit benefits to illegal immigrants is pending in the upper chamber. "Our priorities should be on Georgia's neediest citizens ... (and) our neighbors, our friends who are hurting - the evacuees from the Gulf," Johnson said. "Those should all be a higher priority than somebody who has broken the law and come to this country illegally."

One would think that since welfare generally only perpetuates poverty and hurts those who receive it, these Republicans would cut their own citizens from it first, and illegals second! But, irregardless, many of the anti-immigration arguments center around the increased burden facing social services. First. these arguments are moot because illegals pump much more into the economy than they take out, but even if these positions had merit, these folks should not be attacking immigration, but the socialism that results in the illegals causing the so-called 'problem'.

"Helmet laws must be required so we don't pay for your injury when you hurt yourself", some say. Don't attack the helmet laws, attack the socialism that results in the compulsory confiscation of your money to pay for the health care of others.

Faith Based and Community Inititives

White House

President George W. Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiative represents a fresh start and bold new approach to government's role in helping those in need. Too often the government has ignored or impeded the efforts of faith-based and community organizations. Their compassionate efforts to improve their communities have been needlessly and improperly inhibited by bureaucratic red tape and restrictions placed on funding. Their goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers.

Was it unfair that religious organizations couldn't compete for Federal dollars? Do we want the government exerting influence on Religion and vice versa? Do you agree with Justice Hugo Black who said, "Its [the establishment clause's] first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."? Your opinions to the above questions don't matter. The fact that government gives money to any organization at all has given rise to the dispute. Eliminate all 'charitable' Federal activity and the problem doesn't exist. Since Federal charity it is unconstitutional anyway, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

Bush to Allow limited Stem Cell Funding

8/10/01 In a much-anticipated decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. Are you upset that your government is funding stem cells with your money? Are you upset that new stem lines are not being funded by the government? Why does this debate exist? Why do you have an opinion one way or the other? The problem is that, under threat of imprisonment, the government is confiscating its citizens' money to spend on whatever research it, the government, chooses. In a runway Democracy, the government can spend a little less than half of its citizens' money this way, on research causes against their will, and still stay in power. This is not respecting the rights of the minority. The solution is to abolish government research in all areas. Without government having the power to redistribute research money, the debate is, again, moot. People can voluntarily donate to foundations or nonprofits that fund research they are interested in (and get more bang for their buck too).

Year after year we are greeted by Congressional deadlock as Congressmen debate the $2.3 trillion dollar bloated and wasteful budget and fight to repay their contributing constituents with pork and goodies. Just like there exists differing opinions on stem cell research, I'm sure most Americans have different ideas of what government should be doing, if it should be doing anything at all, and what government programs they would like increased or decreased. If people were spending their own money, instead of government taking it from them to piraticaly divvy up the loot, then there could be no contention around budget time.

During the recent Social Security debates there was an attempt by some to focus the debate on those who received Social Security disability checks, which are entirely different from retirement accounts. There are a few underlying problems:

1. Disability checks, if they are going to exist, should not be part of a retirement program.

2. Disability checks, paid for by the Federal Government, should not exist.

3. Social Security, retirement socialism, should not exist (and should be phased out).

Politicizing the FDA

8/30/05 Washington Post Editorial attacking the non approval of a pill called Plan B, a pill some Conservatives had attacked for acting like an abortion. Again, it is irrelevant whether the Post's charges are true, or what actually happened. Others have complained about Ephedra and nearly every publication I saw blamed, in part, the FDA for the recent Viox deaths. The blame thrown at the FDA and the 'fixes' that are being planned would all be extraneous if the FDA did not exist. Indeed, and ironically, many of the problems the agency is blamed for not preventing might be lessened if the agency did not exist! The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford recently resigned and an article stated:

Crawford's tenure was marked by increasing criticism of the agency by those who contended it had become more interested in politics than in its mission to protect consumers.

An agency run by the government cannot be free from political control! Every government agency is, by definition, mired in political discourse.

I'm sure I could find similar articles and disputes about nearly all government agencies, for example, the Department of Agriculture. The socialization of our food, drugs, and the many other products/services and 'concerns' that we aren't even aware of, are causing untold devastation and hurtful secondary disputes throughout society.

In conclusion, David D. Boaz once said:

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

This quote echoes what I referred to before as the Tyranny of the majority. Socialism exists around the world because it was propagated on the entire population by either Tyrants, elected government officials, or a majority of a population. It needs to be recognized for the evil that it is and confronted head on. By attacking the secondary problems of socialism, you are, in essence, legitimizing the underlying socialism that caused the problem in the first place. Worse, even if a given issue is resolved satisfactorily, in your opinion, you can rest assured that a similarly rooted problem will again arise in the future. Socialism is like a mass of festering snakes, if you cut off a head, two will grow back. The problem must be eliminated at its roots.

Posted 11/12/05

A Health Threat We're Not treating / Don't Let Doctors Rig the Market for Specialty Hospitals

11/12/05 Washington Post An article by Newt Gingrich fails to see that the problems he is identifying only exist because of socialism present in the health care system. An example of a 'Secondary Problem of Socialism'.

Posted 3/7/06

Unconventional Use / Publicly funded venues spark controversy

3/6/06 Colorado Springs Gazette

Excellent article that fits with and has been added to 'Secondary Problems of Socialism'.

Posted 11/30/07 (By Travis)

Taking Marriage Private

11/26/07 New York Times

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families.

A great history of marriage follows, with the ominous conclusion:

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents.

The authors suggestion?

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.