Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Willy Williams on Socialism

Walter Williams hates Socialists. I guess that's ineveitable for someone of his age and ideology. In an article on Free Health Care Williams states:

Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim that health-care service is a human right that people should have regardless of whether they can pay for it or not and that it should be free. Before we buy into this socialist agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free."

So Williams believes that Health Care should not be provided for universally because there would be long lines of sick people that would overwhelm the system. In his indictment of the Canadian healthcare system he shows that there are massive wait times for appointments and surgeries. Furthermore, Doctors are exiting the country, presumably to the US where they can make some real loot. Apparently in his exaultation of the so called 'free-trade medical system" Williams does not feel the need to discuss the very real fact that regeardles of which system you have, people will continue to get sick. In both systems the sick "disapear" that is they find alternatives to the "free" system provided to them. In the "dollar must rule" camp, those that do not have insurance, which is how most Americans "pay" for thier healthcare simply do not show up to the doctor. Instead they show up at the Emergency Rooms across the nation. Emergency rooms are required by law to attend to anyone who shows up. By the time people get to Emergency rooms their problems, which may have been treated for far less than the resulting E-room visit are far further along and often have related complications. Since these people still can't pay, who ends up footing the bill?

See the problem with Willy, is that he confuses setting a minimal standard of healthcare for all, with guaranteeing the best care for everyone. So long as there are costs associated with health care and there are people who have more money than others, Health care, among other things, will never be equal. But providing for a healthy population is the job of government. But I guess Willy, prefers the free death we dispense to people around the world. THAT's ok by Willy, 11,000 Iraqis and 900 US Soldiers dead. Cost to the Iraqis: 0. Cost to the taxpayer: A couple billion Dollars.

Continuing on. Willy here get's besides himself on an article entitled Socialism is Evil in it he makes the preposterous statement that:

 Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another...



 What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.


 Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.


 Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.


 The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.


 Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?


 Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.


 An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.


 For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.


Well I guess that Willy nearly fainted in class when the concept of social contracts were discussed. Apparently Williams has a hard time grasping the concept that people agree to give money to the state in order to benefit collectively from the pooling of those resources. In fact the state in essence is the result of a populance pooling their resources. If the transfer of money from an individual to the state, and the state then transfering money to other individuals that then produce something that returns money back to the state and then back to the person that initially made the investment, then you have a money cycle. Simple economics. News to Willy: America is a corporation. Those in the state of America buy shares in the state (taxes) the state ( corporation) Does what it wants with the money (which is where the real problem lies) and then pays a divident ( infastructure, public education, healthcare ( didn't we cover this?), defense ( sadly and really offense) back to the public.

Similarly Car and Health insurance works on the evil socialist model. Everyone pays into the pot and because of that large pot, the price of medical care drops (supposedly) and instead of paying $100 for a visit to the doctor, you pay $5. Similarly with car insurance, society ( the people) pay into the pot. when you have an accident in your $50,000 vehicle and cause $10,000 in property damage and rack up $30,000 in medical bills, that $500 premium you payed for that year suddenly allows you to draw upon nearly $1 million in funds. I think that if Willy thinks that socialism is so evil and un-Christianlike, then the next time he has a car acccident he should pay for the damage out of his pocket. And should he require medical attention he should take himself to a private hospital ( can't use that ambulance or county hospital), and be sure to pay the bill cash.

Links:
ttp://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040721.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040728.shtml

1 comment:

sondjata said...

On : 8/5/2004 1:15:00 AM ronnie B. (www) said:

in all his pompous intellectual bombast...i guess he forgot acknowlege the Founding Fathers notion of "provide for the general welfare"...Sondjata, great example using the Car and Insurance industries...