Evil Concealed By Money
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 19, 2008



Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

This is very flawed and evil reasoning

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

How is it "flawed" and how is it "evil?"

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

"Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another."

incredibly insightful way of spelling out the illogical thought processes of millions of confused Americans.

I dont often reply but Vi i love every post you make

__________________
I exist only to be a gadfly...
What is justice?
bl33b's Power Skunk 400w HPS Grow Log

If you could look at it with a clear vision, you may see it, but since you cant:
Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.
Giving a blanket assumption that socialism is evil is in itself evil

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
The use of flawed imagination, IE using obtuse thinking as imagination to make a comparison is downright evil.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.
This is absolutely untrue and BTW it is how society is supposed to work, taxes are the glue of a society, without them this would become a non-society or a country of kings and serfs. The above assertion is the long thougt out comment of ultra libertarians who really have no place in this society. That is the thinking of the middle ages, Hmmmm, are you really that old? Socialism is evil is the opinion of this commentator and the gist of the whole piece. Seeing that it fits your mind set, It would be hard to assuage you of this.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?
I doubt this is what the real role of a democracy is or what taxation actually does. What it attempts to do is eliminate poverty, provide opportinity, (To all) and make sure their is fairness in the society by taxing the uber-rich with a higher Percentage to equal the playing field. If this sounds like communism to you, then I must assume you are a Nazi.

Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.
Considering Madison was a very affluent man (For his time) it shows his, as well as those that agree with him's selfishness and addiction to priveledge. Those of priveledge will never know the hardships of the common man, and as such lack empathy and understanding. It would be nice if we all had a life of priveledge and could make statements like Madison, but alas, we don't. And as such we must insist on a progressive tax system as it helps the majority of the people.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

if thats not a blanket statement Med that i dont know what is.

__________________
I exist only to be a gadfly...
What is justice?
bl33b's Power Skunk 400w HPS Grow Log

Is it untrue? Is it mostly untrue? I mean there may be one here and there, but for the most part 80-95%. I'll wager it's true.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

why would u wager that its tru? especially since quite a few people that make tons of money are elitist leftists, like michael moore and al franken.

__________________
I exist only to be a gadfly...
What is justice?
bl33b's Power Skunk 400w HPS Grow Log

Man I'm not sure the old lady example is the kernel of the problem with what happens under socialist governments (like ours).

I suppose if the old lady's garden realy starts looking like a horror movie you may offer to pay much more....

The real problem is that it gets abused both by those who receive and those who give the services...

All the many useless non-governmental organisations... maybe non-profit, but not non-salaried.

Here the other side of the coin, it has degenerated to the point of 15 year old school girls falling pregnant on purpose to receive a $15 monthly grant.

The changes that happened in the world in the last 30 years makes all the changes from pre- french revolution till right befre then seem like childsplay...

Things like sexual "norms" what was unheard of not only became common, but you are no longer aloud to even epress displeasure at it.

The abolishment of the death penaly (which is a surefire way of fucking with evolution).

Childrens right supercedeing the parents'

Remember The 50's to the 80's? Lets say you wanted a camera... you received a camera from the shop, made of metal and it would likey still be in working order today... today we get disposable stuff which we get conned by the media into thinking is useless while it still functions and then we upgrade... Despite the fact that we are using more than the total sustainable output of the earth... instead of cutting back, we dig deeper....

For earth to survive it is time for natural selection to come back... there is no shortage of humans.

I.e. in the long run socialism will weaken us.
It is unnatural.


It is hard to say these things as I am a bit of a treehugging bleeding heart... but at times I am able to seprate myslef from the concepts I meditate on.

I'm a gambling man, and for every Michael moore, there are a thousand greedy pricks that could give a fuck less about anyone but themselves. I can't prove it but like I said, I'll wager. There is a certain point in some greedy pricks life where what I consider to be the "hidden guilt" manifests itself, and they go on a charity binge. but that is a very small percentage. Most die with their ill-begotten wealth and pass it on to their spoiled spawn and the the rant of priveledge continues. BTW, are you a spawn of priveledge? Also, I may not be able to talk to priveledged assholes on the street, but that is the beauty of the anonymous internet, it's a thing of beauty ain't it?

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.