After reading the following response to a prior e-mail comment on a common sentiment regarding the passage of health care legislation, I, instinctively had to respond.

---

From the originator of this e-mail to the person who posted the “ditty” below:

---

Before I get to my full response I can’t help but assume that she is not a business owner because of her association of them with greed. I wonder how she would support herself were all business were to shut down and retire with all of their profits because they were sick and tired of being called greedy while providing the means for people like her to support herself and her small minded viewpoint on industrialists? I am also a bit confused because she seems to be aligned with the Democrats who passed this “legislation”; yet she decries politicians having lobbyists in their pockets. Is she implying that the Republicans passed this abortion of a bill because they were influenced by lobbyists? She seems to be attacking them, but the fact is after the bill passed on pure Democrat votes, all of the insurance stocks rose dramatically and are still on the upswing. By the way, please note that as soon as Scott Brown was elected to “stop health care legislation”, health care stocks plummeted. So much for Republicans being in the pockets of insurance company lobbyists. But, I digress. Back on point:

You are correct in that there are differences between the two; however, there are more similarities in the end. Socialism generally refers to an economic system; while, communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. It is said that an element of Communism is that there is no central government (just a small group in complete, unquestioned control) – there is, instead, a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for common advantage of all members. Another element of an ideal Communism society is that people work, not because they must, but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility. (What do you suppose happens to n’er-do-wells who game the system in these countries?) As such, to ensure everyone’s needs are met, production must be very high – at least initially. From there, production can taper down to match existing need.

Of course, after observing Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea, and most recently Venezuela; we know that both of these economic conditions are never achieved. In fact, the opposite happens. People do have to work and do so because they are coerced and not out of any sense of responsibility. Goods become scarce, markets are manipulated (e.g. milk prices are ordered to be kept low by the central planner [Hugo Chavez], and farmers compensate by converting milk production to cheese where profits are larger for the same volume of work – the net result being a severe shortage of milk because demand exceeds production and prices are held artificially low). Of course, the next step is to threaten farmers who undergo such transformation of their dairy business with imprisonment, death or worse – a life of torture. As evidenced by using MSNBC, a known haven for liberal/socialist leaning thought – the truth about nationalization and socialism can’t be hidden. As a side note; just as a shortage of milk occurred in a dairy rich country – a shortage of medical care will become evident in a technology rich United States sooner than those of you who supported this vile “legislation” think.

Back to the main point. Under a socialist society, central planning of the society is the key to making it work. It is said that socialism deals only with matters of economy and not politics, but that is as valid a statement as claiming that bees can fly because, like birds, their wings are also feathered. In light of the following definition, consider the question below:

How can a society decide and agree upon how businesses will be run, how goods will be produced and distributed, how assurance can be had that such a distribution is equal and equitable and based upon what is earned, rather than what is needed?

You see, in order for a capitalist society to devolve, the first step is socialism where production is distributed according to people’s deeds (measure and quality of work done). Keep in mind that you are only allowed to earn so much because socialism, like communism, rejects a class based society; so, within reason, all things have to be equal. The difference is that modern socialism believes that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism without a basic change in the character of the state. Capitalism is not viewed as a dictatorship for a capitalist class, but more so as a machine that can be used in the interest of whichever group (class) gets command of it. If you think the work that gets and controls command is the entire working class and that politics are not essential with a goal of such magnitude and scope, guess again. While you are guessing, keep this quote in mind:

Communism, on the other hand, requires that such a machine be obliterated, because, fundamentally, the society must undergo transformative change to the benefit of the working class (proletariat) and its allies. They see capitalism as a dictatorship of the wealthy that must be replaced with a dictatorship of the worker in order to eliminate class distinctions and enable central planning. In this instance, capitalists as a class are eliminated even though they may still exist as individuals – after all, if you kill all the thinkers, inventors, creators and leaders of various skill sets and other greedy corporatists, who will give the means for production sufficient to feed, cloth and shelter individuals? Never mind excesses such as computers, cars, flat panel televisions, MRI and CT scanners, robot guided surgery and other unnecessary and esoteric things we take for granted today in our corrupt society.

This all begs the question that distinguishes socialism from communism: putting aside the element of time necessary for a takeover, how does a society as large and diverse as that of the United States find consensus on every aspect of life to the satisfaction of every person when simply identifying as an American without some sort of hyphenated qualifier is rare and difficult to achieve. Do you suspect that there will come a day when African-American, Latin-American, Italian-American, Irish-American, Iranian-American, and so on will become unheard of?

What was once a “melting pot” has become a “segregation pot” of dividing cultural interests and goals. The United States, as evidenced by our own Congress and to a lesser extent, our State governments is rapidly devolving into a Divided State(s) as one group after another demands to be served first. As each State stands for it’s own separate interest, we appear more like Europe and with all of Congress’ unfunded mandates, how long do you suppose it will be before States start issuing their own currency (vouchers) as was the case in the 30′s? The only unifier we’ll have left after that takes place will be language. Have you ever wondered why Europe never evolved into a united continent? Have you ever wondered why, as a continent much older and allegedly wiser than the upstart United States, it never achieved the same level of success and achievement of the United States? Has it crossed your mind that by moving the United States closer to our European friends model that we may also regress our standard of living and our technological accomplishments to the level of what are now second tier competitors?

No longer are people clamoring to serve the interests of this nation first; nor are they concerned with the condition of the individual or the security and prosperity of future generations. No longer are people proud of being members of the most advanced and productive civilization on the planet. It is apparently better to lower our standards and not stand out, than it is to go on as we have. We have devolved from “the home of the brave and the land of the free” into a whiney, wimpy nany state of demanding children dependent upon government for our daily bread, and as such, we have become undeserving of liberty and justice. So, in the scheme of things, the health care bill passage is what the seeds most Americans have sown and they are getting what their complacency deserves.

If this cultural division and our new found me and mine first attitude are so difficult to overcome, how difficult do you suppose it will be to get consensus on every aspect of the United States economy and society at large, including which elements are acceptable as cultural expressions of Americanism and which are not? Within a classless society, there can be no winners and losers – all needs must be tended to diligently to avoid even the sense of haves vs. have-nots. That is the goal and purpose of central planners that are the backbone to a socialist society. (Again, with this fact, how can one say socialism is economy based only?)

So, will we end up with a homogeneous dictatorship? If so, which group will prevail and which groups will be forced to submit and assimilate if they can, or face some form of exclusion/elimination if they can’t or won’t? How will this exclusion/elimination take place? Socialism is much different in European countries such as France to establish and maintain. In France the majority of people are obviously French born, of French descent, and carry with them a deep, ingrained French culture of pragmatism and altruism [in the worst sense of the word. - ED opinion].

In the United States, where people from all nations have gathered over two centuries to form a great society built on the strengths of each component part (synergy) change of that sort is difficult and will be traumatic. As such it may inspire yet another revolution. The strength of the nation fed by its unique synergy of assimilation has been diluted by the divisions fostered by progressivism insistence on cultural divisions and non-assimilation that run counter to establishing commonality, even in crisis. Witness how little concern people have for our military serving in combat zones in comparison to the huge interests displayed regarding social interests at home. Just look at how fast 911 has faded from memory and our determination to rid the world of terrorism.

The Balkins devolved into sectarian violence and segregation. Iraq is divided along sectarian lines socially and religiously, but politically, they remain united for now but without the beneficial synergy we experienced here. With the extreme polarization of political parties and the emergence of the “Tea Party” and the “Coffee Party”, could this nation also be devolving into sectarian divisions with a propensity for violent expression on a large scale. Could there be a sudden shift in respect for the rule of law, or acceptance of the Constitution as binding glue, resulting in the sudden and frequent appearance of Timothy McVeigh like people or worse? Catholicism is under attack from many corners (some it deserved); Moslems (in large numbers) are attacking anything non-Moslem and even Moslems of different sects; Jews, in spite of the atrocities they’ve already suffered, are still despised by many in all parts of the globe. It wasn’t that long ago that Irish Catholics and Protestants were killing and bombing each other and the British over different political viewpoints. Is this a time to break down what has served so well for most of our 200 year plus history by creating even more divisions? Witness the violent verbal and physical threats made on Congressman Bart Stupak, threats of violence and racism made to a female Republican representative from Ohio, Jeanne Schmidt, and bullets aimed at Republican leaders’ Eric Canter’s office tearing through his door, a coffin thrown through a window in a Democrat’s office and more. How much more will it take before the ultimate fuse is lit?

Simple statements are called “simple” for a reason. Everyone is in possession of a brain. Some are more effective and productive in using theirs than others, either as differences derived from nature (or God) or circumstance. Others are different due to lack of use and practice in trying to understand our world a bit deeper beyond the superficial statements generally uttered by the clueless to the even more clueless.

The world would be a better place and capitalism could be an even greater powerhouse than it is were people to simply use this one survival tool granted to humans and do a bit of ethical thinking regarding justice, liberty and the benefits to society that focused self-interest and self-reliance promotes. A long time ago, a philosophy professor whose class I attended once posed the following question: How can a collective society exist without a dictatorship among people who do not share a common brain? In other words, how do you get billions/trillions of people to accept all aspects of society equally without the use of force?

I don’t have the answer to the ultimate solution, but whenever something as massive as realigning health care and 1/6th of the economy is at stake, one may want to consider a Constitutional Amendment. This is appropriate, because nowhere in that document, or any other document will you find medical care expressed as a right. Nowhere, other than in the preamble will you find the founders advocating collectivism of any form. This is found only at the very beginning when they comment on the purpose of government as the sole power to …establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…Government is charged with providing an Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and a Judicial Branch. Additionally, it is charged with enforcing the laws (police) and protecting the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s it!

Slavery is against the law; however, it need not be imposed by outside forces, and as such it is hard to see without some thought. This is especially true if one considers for a moment how self-enslaving not thinking, not acting on one’s own behalf, but relying, instead, upon others for day to day survival is. When the government puts a family on welfare, they are not just saying that we’ll take care of you; they are also saying that the life you experience while under our care is the best you will ever experience so long as we are your Patron. This has no lasting benefit to society or toward the improvement of an individual life, but instead, serves as a source of rot, just as a bruise on a piece of fruit harms the quality of the fruit as a whole.

I’m speaking of cases where people threw away their opportunity to learn. Where people have refused work. Where people have chosen a life of crime, drugs or alcoholism. Where people have chosen to have children when they weren’t prepared to provide and care for them? In this context, I’m excluding those people who are born with catastrophic illness or who incurred catastrophic injury. In short, I’m not speaking about responsible people who planned and live responsible lives. When faced with such a choice regarding those who’ve chosen lives that have foreseeable consequences inherent in such choices, would one work to save the bruise or use resources for the betterment of the remaining healthy body of fruit (society)? Just as these people had a choice; we have a choice as well.

Here is a crude and vulgar expression of this sentiment from another blog comment in a most simple yet commonplace philosophic view. The tone of the missive, in my view, is reflective of both the quality of mind of the individual speaker and the educational system that guided him in using his rational abilities of thought and expression. There is no true depth of thinking, no evidence of an informed background, both conditions that exist in most blog comments. Yet, he reflects some of the instinctive, common sense expressed far more eloquently by Thomas Paine.

As to your list of “socialism” driven items, I would certainly be happier and better off without the burdens of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and especially the harm wrought by the mindless indoctrination of public “education” upon children. I could easily see a better education for all were people allowed to keep the taxes they pay to fund such a monstrosity to apply to a market based school in an arena of competition. I suspect we would have far more people capable of analytic discovery and expression and far fewer drones blatering doctinal dogma that they were forced to memorized and discouraged from analyzing and discussion in a true exchange of ideas.

Your last point betrays your ignorance of your own Constitution and of your heritage. It also supports my statement about spouting off doctrinal dogma handed down and accepted without question by the indoctrinated. However, worry not; the education you need to analyze your own statement can be found in the preamble to the glorious Constitution of the United States:

Please, do check the links, especially the one for Welfare. Should you find that too difficult to carry out as a socialist, you may either close your eyes are read on:

I think it clear that under the Welfare provision of the Constitution, that the expectation of policing and fire protection is one that confirms an original intent of the framers to safeguard the people in exchange for empowering a weak government, and that providing for public safety is a Constitutional guarantee. So, no, emergency services and service providers are not socialist in nature – they are essential functions of government as prescribed by the “Law of the Land”. The other three programs you mention, social security, medicare/medicaid, and public education are not Constitutional guarantees. They are socialist in nature and by implementation, and as such, they should never have been established, and at this point in time should be repealed as law. The oldest of those came about because of a law passed under President Lincoln in the 1860s (education); next came social security and medicare in the 1960s. Perhaps we should consider a law to not allow government to meet between 2059 and 2071?

Next time a town official states that the first cut to be made to the budget will be either police, fire, or emergency services – PLEASE remember the Constitutional basis for the existence of these organizations and the necessity for citizens to pay some form of tax. Logically, it would seem that such services should be the LAST to be cut. But, they again, that’s why we have elections. Do y’all remember where candidates stood that last time a police officer, a fire-fighter or an ambulance crewman was cut due to budget shortfalls when other municipal employees could have been cut instead? I do. Save liberty and peace; vote whenever there is an election and hope everyone else in town shows up at the ballot box.