"You Are NOT Alone!"
The Moral Principle in the Socialist Debate
From The Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Most everyone who is not a libertarian misses the central point in the health care debate. It’s the same point, by the way, in the Social Security debate. The point is the one that involves a basic moral principle: It’s wrong to take what doesn’t belong to you, whether you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or whatever.
At the most basic level, all Americans would acknowledge that it is wrong to take someone else’s money without his consent. That basic principle is ingrained in us from childhood. Some would argue that it’s built into us as part of our DNA or imprinted into our conscience.
Cuba provides a good starting point for our analysis. In 1959, when Castro assumed power, there were lots of wealthy people in the country. They had large companies, such as those that produced rum or cigars. They lived in beautiful homes. They owned plantations.
Along comes Castro and decides to impose a socialist system on Cuba. He simply kicks the wealthy people out of their businesses, homes, and plantations and gives the property to the poor.
Many Americans would sense the fundamental immorality of what Castro has done. While he could get away with what he did legally, what he did was immoral. He had no moral right to take someone’s home, business, or farm away from him in order to give it to someone else.
People are equally able to apply this moral principle to the private sector. If someone accosts you, takes you to an ATM, and forces you to withdraw $1,000 from your bank account and then give it to him, most everyone would say that that is morally wrong.
What if the thief uses the money to pay for a medical operation for his ailing mother in order to save her life? What if he uses it to fund a poor person’s education? What if he gives it to his 90-year-old parents who are broke?
It wouldn’t matter. Most everyone would say that while such factors could be considered by the judge in sentencing, they would not excuse what the thief has done. The people had a right to their money and the thief, no matter how great his need for the money, had no right to take it from them.
The principle is really no different in any socialist program, including Social Security and Medicare. With these programs, the state is forcibly taking money from the young and productive and giving it to the elderly.
What is fascinating about the socialism debate are the mental contortions that many Americans engage in to justify or rationalize socialist programs, especially the ones that are benefitting them.
Consider, for example, Social Security. This program is based on a very simple principle: The state will take money from people who have earned it — i.e., the young and productive — in order to give it to people to whom it does not belong — i.e., old people. Medicare, of course, is based on the same violation of moral principle. It involves taking money from young people into order to pay the health care costs of old people.
Yet, this is what many supporters and beneficiaries of these programs say: “All my life I put my money into a trust fund, which the government has mismanaged. I am now retiring. The value of my assets has recently fallen. I need the money. I’m not taking anyone else’s money. I’m getting my money back.”
Yet, none of this is true. It’s all just mental contortions that enable people to avoid confronting the reality of what these programs are doing — taking money that rightfully belongs to young people and middle-aged people, many of whom are struggling in life, and giving it to people to whom it does not belong — i.e., old people.
Several decades ago, elderly Americans used these socialist programs to plunder the wealth of younger people. Those old people are now dead. That younger generation that they plundered is now the old people. What they’re now saying, in reality, is this: “People who are now dead took my money from me to fund their retirement. Since they did it to me, I have the right to do it the young people today. When they get old, they will have the right to do it to their children’s and grandchildren’s generation too.”
What can be said about a nation whose people are fighting hard to maintain socialist programs that at their core violate one of the most fundamental moral principles known to man? Not very much.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Most everyone who is not a libertarian misses the central point in the health care debate. It’s the same point, by the way, in the Social Security debate. The point is the one that involves a basic moral principle: It’s wrong to take what doesn’t belong to you, whether you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or whatever.
At the most basic level, all Americans would acknowledge that it is wrong to take someone else’s money without his consent. That basic principle is ingrained in us from childhood. Some would argue that it’s built into us as part of our DNA or imprinted into our conscience.
Cuba provides a good starting point for our analysis. In 1959, when Castro assumed power, there were lots of wealthy people in the country. They had large companies, such as those that produced rum or cigars. They lived in beautiful homes. They owned plantations.
Along comes Castro and decides to impose a socialist system on Cuba. He simply kicks the wealthy people out of their businesses, homes, and plantations and gives the property to the poor.
Many Americans would sense the fundamental immorality of what Castro has done. While he could get away with what he did legally, what he did was immoral. He had no moral right to take someone’s home, business, or farm away from him in order to give it to someone else.
People are equally able to apply this moral principle to the private sector. If someone accosts you, takes you to an ATM, and forces you to withdraw $1,000 from your bank account and then give it to him, most everyone would say that that is morally wrong.
What if the thief uses the money to pay for a medical operation for his ailing mother in order to save her life? What if he uses it to fund a poor person’s education? What if he gives it to his 90-year-old parents who are broke?
It wouldn’t matter. Most everyone would say that while such factors could be considered by the judge in sentencing, they would not excuse what the thief has done. The people had a right to their money and the thief, no matter how great his need for the money, had no right to take it from them.
The principle is really no different in any socialist program, including Social Security and Medicare. With these programs, the state is forcibly taking money from the young and productive and giving it to the elderly.
What is fascinating about the socialism debate are the mental contortions that many Americans engage in to justify or rationalize socialist programs, especially the ones that are benefitting them.
Consider, for example, Social Security. This program is based on a very simple principle: The state will take money from people who have earned it — i.e., the young and productive — in order to give it to people to whom it does not belong — i.e., old people. Medicare, of course, is based on the same violation of moral principle. It involves taking money from young people into order to pay the health care costs of old people.
Yet, this is what many supporters and beneficiaries of these programs say: “All my life I put my money into a trust fund, which the government has mismanaged. I am now retiring. The value of my assets has recently fallen. I need the money. I’m not taking anyone else’s money. I’m getting my money back.”
Yet, none of this is true. It’s all just mental contortions that enable people to avoid confronting the reality of what these programs are doing — taking money that rightfully belongs to young people and middle-aged people, many of whom are struggling in life, and giving it to people to whom it does not belong — i.e., old people.
Several decades ago, elderly Americans used these socialist programs to plunder the wealth of younger people. Those old people are now dead. That younger generation that they plundered is now the old people. What they’re now saying, in reality, is this: “People who are now dead took my money from me to fund their retirement. Since they did it to me, I have the right to do it the young people today. When they get old, they will have the right to do it to their children’s and grandchildren’s generation too.”
What can be said about a nation whose people are fighting hard to maintain socialist programs that at their core violate one of the most fundamental moral principles known to man? Not very much.
Views: 4
Comment
© 2024 Created by Web Master.
Powered by
You need to be a member of The 9-12 Project of Central PA to add comments!
Join The 9-12 Project of Central PA