Tag Archive: socialism

I have met some social liberals who were not statists. They called themselves Libertarians and/or peaceful anarchists. I will address these two groups in another post. I also know some social liberals who call themselves fiscal conservatives, but they are kidding themselves. When push came to shove, their statism showed right through. But, what IS a statist?

A statist is a proponent/advocate of statism which is defined as: a concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry. Basically, anyone who advocates that the government “do something,” is a statist. Anyone who looks to government to solve problems is a statist. Policies of statists create “big government.”

Sadly, many statists don’t even know they are statists. They’ll say things like, “Well, I don’t believe we need more government interference, but they need to make sure businesses can’t refuse service to anyone.” Yep. That’s a quote from a thread on my Facebook page. This person self-identified as a Christian conservative who was for small government. This type of disconnection from reality is NOT uncommon…look at John McCain. Need I say more?

But, here’s where it gets really tricky. I have seen many an argument about “Republican” and “Democrats,” when really the discussion should have been about statists in both parties. One party wanted one kind of big government and the other party a different kind of big government. In the end, there is no difference when dealing with statists. Some want total government quickly and some are content to get there more slowly. The goal is the same.

It’s not the direct fault of most people that they have no clue where the Constitution lies on the continuum and what it means to be a statist.

Most of us were told, in school, that Communism and Socialism are on the “left” and Fascism is on the “right.” We all believed this, right? I mean, sure, that makes sense…until you ask where the Constitution and anarchists fit in this supposed spectrum. What we have is a bunch of names for different types of total government. So, where do the Constitution, Libertarianism, and Anarchy fit?

The graph that accurately shows the spectrum looks like this (from The 5,000 Year Leap):


Truly, government equals coercion. You don’t pay taxes because you want to. You pay them because, if you don’t, they’ll fine you, or eventually throw you in jail. You don’t get a driver’s license because it’s a wise thing to do. You get it because driving without one will be made unpleasant by the state government, if you get caught. Coercion. Sometimes it’s necessary to have coercion (laws against murder, etc.), but we have to know that it is, always, coercion.

So, we see that the argument we have about “right” and “left” in this country – mostly by elected officials (think Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi) – is really about how much total government we want. Pelosi wants massive government, and Graham wants slightly less massive government. The REAL place we were meant to be was even further into the space of where a republic lives…where the rule of law is paramount.

The Rule of Law is where all laws apply equally to every single person in this nation, where everyone gets equal protection under the law, where every single individual has rights that are given to us by our “Creator.” I’m not making this up, either! This is the basis for our entire country. These rights cannot legally be infringed upon by anyone. They are not given by men, because, if so, they could be legally taken away by men. Our founders and framers set up a republic for us.

First, right now, click on the link at the right and buy my book. It’s a book that’s great for kids and adults alike. It’s funny history with cartoons…what’s not to like?

Then, watch this video. This video (worth EVERY SECOND it takes to watch) will explain why we are a republic, and what the consequences of being anything else are:

Now, after watching this, and reading this post, you’ll know what I mean when I reference “statists.” Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Fascists ALL fall under the title of statist.

Make sure you know where you stand.

Back when we were still part of England, there were classes of people. If you were born to a scullery maid, you’d never have even the opportunity to go to university, let alone a well-paying job. You were not to look people of a higher class in the eye, and you were literally stuck in the class where you started, no matter how smart you were or how hard you worked…none of it mattered. That’s what “classes” mean.

In America, people talk about the “middle class.” Well, that’s bunk. We have NO classes here. We are all born EQUAL, have equal protection under the law, have equal opportunities to make the best of what life has doled out for us, and no one can tell us we can’t look anyone in the eye…even the president.

See, the “middle class” is a myth. There are people who currently make what we currently deem to be “middle class wages,” (which changes all the time, by the way). But, that means nothing in terms of wealth…or worth. With regular people, they tend to look “poor” at first, then when they get more experience, get promotions and the like, they make more money. Then, they start to look poorer later, when retired, but that’s because retirement funds don’t count as INCOME. See? It’s a farce. A very large number of older Americans have even left the realms of “middle class” in the dust when it comes to wealth.

What you will never hear from countries that have Socialism or true class structures (see the Untouchables in India for an actual example of class structures is operation today) is someone being poor dirt poor and “making it” or even people just living the lives they carve out for themselves. That’s reserved for America where we don’t have classes and we don’t have people who are stuck forever in poverty due to the way the government is structured (massive taxes that prohibit the upward mobility that used to happen so very much in this country).

At least, that’s what America USED to be. Now, we are more and more into socialism, which means a ruling class…and everyone else, including you. The ruling class we have elected for ourselves do not hold themselves to the laws that they write for us, earning higher wages is punished with higher taxes punishing success, and the ensuing stagnation of the economy is what always happens when people in republics do this. Pretty soon, if we don’t shape up, we will have a real middle class…and like most socialist countries, the “middle class” will be actually poor. But, when everyone is starving, no one is hungry, right?

Personally, I follow Jefferson’s feelings on the matter:

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

Amen, Jefferson, Amen.

Pick up a copy of my book by clicking the link at the right! Seriously, when is the last time you read a history book that didn’t put you to sleep? Well, now’s the time!!

Socialism Making Poor Since 1917

First we have to start out with a little background. Socialism works off the initial premise that there is no such thing as private property. What you earn, what you own, your house, your clothes, all of it…not really yours. This is in direct opposition to our country’s basic laws on private property…as in, it exists and, aside from protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic, the government’s entire reason for existing is protecting our right to life, liberty, and private property. So, start there.


Now, we can move on to a statement from a self-avowed Socialist, who also happens to be an elected representative in our US House of Representatives, Bernie Sanders. (Gee, that’s not a conflict of interest, is it??)

“When Social Security was developed in the 1930s, its goal was to cut down on senior poverty. And when it was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty amongst seniors is too high, but that number is 10 percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do.”

“I will be damned if they’re going to cut Social Security,” Sanders added.


First and foremost, we have to ask…WHY are so many people in poverty at this point? What terrible calamities have transpired that this is so??


Answer: The policies of the Federal Government had made people poorer than they would otherwise be.


People say the Great Depression started with the crash of 1929. Not so. There was already a recovery underway (a real one, not like the fake-y one we have now). Then, Hoover decide to “DO SOMETHING!” and threw a bunch of money at the problem (sound familiar? Stimulus, anyone?). Once he started that, things got worse again and stayed that way because of continued policies until they had to call it the “Great Depression.”


FDR came in and decided to keep on spending like a drunken sailor. This lead his very own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau to say,

“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”


So, we can see that, the spending helped nothing, and just made matters worse. To spend this money, it had to take it from the very people who would otherwise have been creating jobs and investing in the economy in a positive way, namely YOU. Yet, they talked like all this government spending was going to make things better!!


This is like someone bashing you in the leg, then mending it by covering up the wound without actually treating it, and telling you to be grateful they were there to save your leg while it festers and rots under the cover!


Now, back to Social Security. We now know that SS was made to “help” the poor, horribly oppressed old people, right? WRONG!

It was set up to not even take effect until years after it started (sounds like Obamacare!). They taxed and taxed, and said that 6 years later, people would start getting benefits. Well, not A LOT of benefits. Just a little. And, you had to be just about dead before you got them.  But, the promise of benefits seemed to make people feel better about living in crapola land.

Life expectancy rates at the time would have gotten you a whopping 3.8 years of benefits after paying in your whole life. Sounds great, right?!

Well, lives got longer and they didn’t really change the age level. Had they kept it in line with the original deal, people would be more likely to realize the scam being played on them, but it also would have been stable.

What they don’t realize at this point is that there is no way to sustain the payments they’ve been lead to believe they are guaranteed. But, the government has a nasty secret…

They’ve already spent your money, my money, the baby boomer’s money…you get the idea. It’ s ALL GONE. It’s now a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions. Bernie Madoff would be proud. They pay out benefits with the current tax dollars coming in. This is why there is the myth going around that SS would be dandy if all those pesky baby boomers would stop retiring (see the MYTH and the actual state of things below, courtesy of my friend, and man of extraordinary intelligence, Rex Rawlinson).

At this point, anyone who thinks that Social Security is going to stay on its current course is willfully ignorant. If you think it was made to actually help the government-impoverished old people, you can add that to the list of ways to be ignorant.

It was a gimmick. It’s still a gimmick. But, now it’s a gimmick that is actually bankrupting the entire nation, instead of just being broke in and of itself. If we tweak the gimmick by making people wait a total of two years to “retire” on SS, it could be extended. But, Socialists like Sanders, will always keep their heads buried in the sand.


MYTH: The Social Security Program was a success until baby boomers began retiring, and there were fewer people paying in and more taking benefits out. Actually, the original social security tax rate was 1% in 1937, increasing to 3% by 1949, on both employees and employers, total 6%, and benefits were not taxed. By 2013 the tax rate had increased to 6.2% on each of employees and employers, total 12.4%, and the base had increased from $3,000.00 to $113, 700. Gradually since 1937 the social security tax rate has increased over 6 times while the base has increased 37.9 times. That’s not a formula of success. Social security benefits, originally tax-free, are now subject to tax on up to 85%.

REALITY: SOCIAL SECURITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FAILURE. It has been broke from the first day it started, which is why social security taxes have always increased at a frightening pace. Look at it this way. You start selling balloons for a penny, and now you’re charging ten dollars a balloon. That’s the real social security story. Sure it’ll never go broke as long as you keep raising taxes to pay for it, but don’t blame it on baby boomers. This Ponzi scheme has been an expensive failure from day one.

Alright, there have been some who call themselves the Christian Left or whatever who seem to think that Jesus would have approved of their redistribution of wealth policies. However, that cannot be so because the very teachings of Jesus and his apostles beg to differ.


Romans 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

Ephesians 4: 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.


These scriptures are all stating that it is not okay to steal. It’s wrong, and thus a sin. But, how can one steal if there is no private property?


In Socialism (collective ownership of goods), there is no private property, which contradicts the sin of theft. How can you steal that which does not belong to any one person?


In redistribution of wealth, the money is forcibly taken by threat of jail by the government from one to give to another. Some say this is charity, but forcibly taken is theft. Theft is sin. It cannot be charity.


Jesus would not condone sinful behavior. Period. Therefore, Jesus never condoned redistribution of wealth (though he said we must individually give of our own will), nor did he condone theft of any kind.


In order to steal, one must first own the property. So, turns out, Jesus is a proponent of private property and individual ownership. When we do not give of our bounty willingly, as individuals, we will face HIM. No government action can make someone charitable because it starts within our own hearts, not within the IRS.

%d bloggers like this: