'I Am a Socialist'

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

 

 
 

Recently, MSNBC's
Lawrence O'Donnell announced
that he is a "socialist." O'Donnell referred to Milton
Friedman's quote,
"We're all Keynesians now," and President Richard Nixon's
quote,
"I am now a Keynesian," in the context of Keynesian economics
being very similar to socialism. O'Donnell went on to assert his
pride in being a socialist, and even suggested that Glenn Beck,
Rand Paul and others are also socialists in one form or another.

So here is
an elaboration of someone, whoever that might be, explaining why
he is a socialist:

"First
and foremost, I am a socialist because I disagree with the Founding
Fathers' ideas on morality and the Rule of Law. It is important
that we have a centralized government that redistributes all the
wealth. The State needs to have the power to take some of the wealth
away from those the State decides have too much of it. Obviously,
no one has a u2018right' to one's own wealth or property. And I don't
believe that u2018all men are created equal' because, if there is a
law against theft, then obviously because we need to allow agents
of the State to take wealth away, then therefore laws against u2018theft'
must exempt agents of the State. That means that some people should
be above the law.

"And
I am a socialist in medical
care
because I think that the centralized government
should control everyone's medical care — it's as simple as that.
It is important that government bureaucrats and their government
doctors and medical services have a monopoly in the medical industry
so they don't have to deal with competitive interests, as opposed
to a free market in medical care in which the consumers determine
which doctors and medical plans would stay in business and which
ones would fail. Some people assert that that gives u2018power to the
people,' but we socialists don't want the people to have that kind
of power — it takes control away from government bureaucrats
and that's why I don't like that. It's important that government
officials control the ultimate decisions in what affects American
medical patients (and because the Blue State grandmas are more likely
to vote for the "good guys" than the Red State grandmas,
if you know what I mean).

"I
support socialist immigration
central planning
because the State has a right, for example,
to prevent an employer in Arizona from hiring an applicant from
Mexico despite the fact that the employer believes that individual
is qualified for the job and the Mexican applicant is willing to
accept the job at the wage both agree on. Their prospective contract
should not be in their control, it should be in the central planners'
control. When we say that socialism
includes public ownership of the means of production, then that
includes ownership of the employer's business, as well as the prospective
employee's direction of employment (as well as the employer and
employee themselves — after all, one of the most important of the
means of production is the people).

(If I may interject
here while Mr. Socialist goes to take a brief powder: Some of what
is being described is actually fascism. While socialism can generally
be described as public ownership of wealth and the means of production,
fascism
allows for private ownership of wealth and the means of production
but the control is usurped by the State. So, there are elements
of socialist programs that are also fascist in nature, and vice
versa. In immigration, for instance, the central planning nature
of public ownership of wealth and the means of production also includes
State control over immigration which is really part of fascism,
so our socialist here is also a fascist, but don't tell him I said
that. Actually, there really is little difference between socialism
and fascism when you get right down to it. But, for the sake of
discussion, we'll continue with our self-proclaimed "socialist"
in his discussion of why he favors socialism.)

"To
continue, I am a socialist because I support the central planning
of chemical ingestion, otherwise known as the War
on Drugs
. While the common sense answer to the u2018drug
problem' might be freedom and personal responsibility, it is nevertheless
important that the centralized bureaucrats have the power to dictate
to people what chemicals they may or may not ingest (even though
this causes a black market in banned drugs, dramatically raises
the prices of drugs and thus incentivizes the black marketers to
form gangs and cartels that causes turf wars and increased violence,
and incentivizes them to push the drugs on impressionable youths
and adults some of whom turn to robbery to afford the pricey substances,
as well as distracts and corrupts the police).

"Speaking
of police and protecting the public, I am an enthusiastic supporter
of the socialist central planning monopoly
in territorial security
(as opposed to a free market
in security, in which those in the protection business would have
to deal with profit-and-loss as determined by competitive agents
and consumer control). It is important that 300 million Americans
are compelled by law to use the monopoly of centrally planned u2018defense'
in Washington to protect them from harm by foreign elements, while
legally forbidding anyone from competing in the business of protection.

"I
also believe in that central planning military socialism because
I haven't read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's books, The
Private Production of Defense
and The
Myth of National Defense
, or Morris and Linda Tannehill's
book, The
Market for Liberty
, and because I really do believe in
the myth that the U.S. government's committing aggression on foreign
lands actually protects Americans and doesn't instead provoke those
in the foreign lands to retaliate against that aggression
and intrusion. I don't want to admit that giving central planners
a monopoly in defense, without the constant checks on their behavior
that the pressures
of competition
in a free market and the requirement to
follow the Rule of Law would bring, actually encourages central
planners to use the government apparatus to further expand their
power and control (and profits
at taxpayers' expense). Can you imagine a private security firm
or insurance agency deliberately provoking the Japanese to bomb
Pearl Harbor, or deliberately encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade
Kuwait as an excuse to invade Iraq? A private firm with competitive
pressures and under the Rule of Law would not only lose business
but its agents would end up in jail. But, despite the messes in
Iraq and Afghanistan that our central defense planners in Washington
have caused, and the fact that Washington's intrusions abroad have
made us less safe, I still want to pretend that this socialism in
defense actually works. As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
noted, "the
system worked
."

"Of
course, given that I'm a proud supporter of redistribution of wealth
schemes, military socialism is effective in taking wealth from American
producers and laborers and redistributing it over to those in the
defense contractor industry (and Wall
Street
). While this socialist (and fascist)
monopoly of territorial protection may be completely
disorganized
because there is no incentive among the
government bureaucrats to be efficient and productive, such a scheme
nevertheless effects in getting contractors' campaign contributions
in the pockets of those politicians who need the jobs they get in
Washington as they would otherwise be unemployed in the private
sector. It's important for America.

"After
all, the Founding Fathers were also socialists in that their Constitution
mandates a centralized government monopoly in defense, in which
free, open competition in that area is outlawed. That's been good
for America.

"And
finally, I support the socialized commerce that the Federal
Reserve
provides, with the help of legal
tender
laws and loose fractional
reserve banking
permissions, because I believe that it
is vital that a centralized government control the money
supply
and banking. We can't allow the people to have
the freedom to choose a bank based on its record of service to the
community, because that would take control away from the centralized
authorities who know better as far as what's best for the people,
and we can't allow the people to have the freedom to choose among
competing
currencies
, because that would take control away from
the centralized authorities who know better as far as what's best
for the people.

"Like
the central planning micromanagement from ObamaCare, Social Security
and government-run education, the Federal Reserve is important to
micromanage the economy, despite all the damage
it has caused since its founding in 1913. So, as a socialist, I
feel it's important to continue the Fed's control over and intrusions
into our money, banking, savings and investments (and our prosperity,
security
and Liberty as well).

"We
need as many government intrusions into every aspect of human existence
as possible, so most of all, I guess I'm a socialist because I
like power and oppose freedom
.

"Bye."

Yeah, goodbye,
Socialist. Now, get lost — we're better off without you.

Scott
Lazarowitz [send him mail]
is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

The
Best of Scott Lazarowitz

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • Podcasts