This is intended to continue yesterday’s post.
People these days are savvy enough to abhor communism. Just like “intolerance” and “racism,” it’s one of the things we know doesn’t work in an upright society, but how much of the country is world-wise enough to know communism when they see it? Here’s something to help you point it out to your friends, you know, when you find that your democracy has embarked upon a journey to communism:
Transition from democracy to communism
A good state strives to secure citizens equal rights under the law. Unfortunately, this aim naturally tends toward creating equality among its citizens and enforcing it by law. What does “forced equality” mean? Rather than merely rendering equal judgement, we strive to actually make people equal.
Communism starts with wealth redistribution
Unavoidably, forcing equality upon the populace necessitates taking choice and accountability out of their lives. In the transition from democracy to socialism, then communism, the state starts by removing accountability first.
- You spent your school years drinking and running up debt? We’ll take money from workers and redistribute it.
- You don’t exercise, and now you have clogged arteries? We’ll make it illegal to base health insurance rates on your health risk.
- You made cars that Americans didn’t want to buy? We’ll bail you out. (Coincidentally, this will please the unions that put me in office).
Once the state can swallow that pill, we remove opportunities for decisions that lead to inequality. We’ll remove products from the shelves in order to protect consumers from their own bad decisions (for instance, banning raw almonds in CA). We ban trans fats. We’ll blame McDonald’s, not its customers, for making people fat. (Angela’s post today concerns suing McDonald’s for its unfair tactic of including toys in its Happy Meals.)
Woe to the state that voluntarily elects communism
But what if a democracy voluntarily elects a shift toward communism or its little sister, socialism? A simple litmus test reveals that they’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. People who want to give charity just give charity; they don’t legislate it. People who want to receive charity legislate it.
So when the majority of voters vote in favour of legislating wealth redistribution, what does that tell us about the population? The majority expects to be on the receiving end. What we end up with is a population of consumers who elect to devour the productive minority.
Let’s see how this relates to our income tax situation here in the U.S.: The top 0.1% of taxpayers (that’s about 0.05% of the adult population) pays 20% of the nation’s federal income taxes. The top 25% of taxpayers (about 12.5% of the adult population) pay 86.6% of the nation’s federal income taxes. How much money do you have to make to be in the top 25%? $66,532 per year or more. That’s a handsome income, but it’s not lobster-and-champagne money. Let’s not forget that they’re paying taxes disproportionate to their earnings. They’re paying about 87% of the nation’s income taxes, but they’re earning only 69% of the nation’s income. That’s almost a 20% discrepancy.1
Nevertheless, we as a nation continue to elect officials who propose more government spending and programs. Government programs take responsibility from individuals and give it to the government (which leads to equality). Higher spending leads to a higher deficit or higher taxes (take your pick).
1 compiled from 2007 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
I so agree, but could not have explained it as well as you did.
Time for a lulsasauring roflcopter up in hurrr!
Greatest line in the whole article: “People who want to give charity just give charity; they don’t legislate it. People who want to receive charity legislate it.”
That will be my new catch phrase, I will make sure to give Markham 5 cents every time I say it.
Goin’ to heck in a handcart as fast as the administration can peddle! Well stated! The problem I see is that neither political party has the will to reverse the tide.
I read a fiction book dealing with a stage play, in it the director commented that the public would “choke on a little truth, but gladly swallow an enormous lie”. True in the book he was talking about the audience being more willing to accept an obvious 40 year old playing a teen than a 16 year old doing the same, but the principle holds.
I can’t explain how, but I feel this relates. Excellent work.
Interesting. I think this is the gist of your thought:
1. equality under the law gets redefined as
2. a mandate for economic equality, which leads to
3. wealth redistribution legislation, which
4. weakens personal accountability and
5. decreases individual initiative, which leads to
6. a welfare state mentality and
7. a centrally controlled society where
8. individual freedom has been traded for a lowest-common-denominator level of economic security.
Not a pretty picture, even if it worked. As you point out, though, it doesn’t work because the wealth redistribution, weakened individual accountability, and decreased personal initiative lessen economic output until there’s literally not enough food, shelter, etc. to go around. History shows that, if unchecked, this inevitably leads to war.
So, how do you see illegal immigration fitting into this dynamic?
so are there any counterexamples where societies return from the brink? If not, let’s make one by a rapid return to the principles which make great nations – integrity, property rights for individuals, equality under the law, incentives to individuals for adding value in society, wealth creation and job creation rather and a shrinking zero sum economic system, if a zero sum can shrink. Thanks for your clarity of thought.
Insightful and articulate, thank you. It is refreshing and strengthening to read a succinct reminder of our status quo.
Many ask, what do we do about it? I wish I were wise enough to know. If I may pontificate for two or three lines: I have learned that political direction does not change without money (and time). It is a sacrifice, but I encourage everyone to find good people, good lobbyists, and/or good interest groups and put some money where our heart is. Every little bit makes a difference. I particularly like using special interest groups.
Thanks again for the excellent piece.
As a political science student I find your article to be anecdotal and inherently flawed. Communism, and socialism, both have distinct political formulas backed by a variety of different ideas and are rooted in the published thoughts of a few people (like Marx, Rousseau, Lenin, Engels for example). What you are describing is more along the lines of an American neoliberal style of democracy shifting towards an American style of social-democracy. You guys should all read Jean-Paul Gagnon, John Keane, Robert Dahl, Jurgen Habermas, Gaetano Mosca, and well pretty much any other theorist who has written on democratic theory and you will see that figuring out what equality means in a society is part of democracy. You are, it seems, opposed to being told you must pay X amount of tax for X amount of programs and feel that people should have the common knowledge to look after themselves. If only this were the case! We look to other countries and see their great development despite high taxes they pay. It comes down to compassion for other humans, or a disdain for them. It is in no way, shape, or form a matter of communism or socialism, those are totally different to what you wrote about. Do some reading!!
I usually handle disagreement gracefully, but I’ll make an exception today.
A poly sci student… going through the same indoctrination that groomed the great political minds we have in office today… None of that hard science for you… Pardon me if I don’t roll over and submit before your credentials.
If you’re going to disagree, make an argument. Don’t toss around labels with the vain imagination that a terminology trumps discussion of the concept behind those terms (e.g. that social democracy is disconnected from socialism because a soft-head decided it was so and got published for it).
In response to your invitation to read and your accusation that my article is anecdotal: I agree that reading is important; but I’ll stick to writers whose doctrines do not follow the scientific tradition that produced Japhetic theory. While you’ve been reading works that aren’t based on empirical study but rather political prejudices (a might poorer even than anecdotes), I’ve been observing the real world and reading real law.
Okay, here’s a post dedicated to you, Vanessa: “In Soviet Russia… (some Yakov Smirnoff joke)” You raise a good point: the communist system written about by the “minds” you mention is not like socialism. The discussion of socialism and communism in the linked article defends the treatment described in this article.
hahahaha….I love Markham. The frigging guy is intense! Spot on article by the way!