SOCIALISM AND CIVIL WAR — PART 1

The Battle of Chickamauga, the highest two-day losses. (from here)

Civil war is the most hateful and costly kind of war. Why? The enemy knows us, and he knows he is unalterably opposed to us. He is already within our gates. He knows our strengths and weaknesses. He seeks our complete downfall, even our destruction.

What does civil war have to do with Socialism? Consider the moral principle upon which Socialism is built? Most Socialists borrow from Karl Marx.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. (from here)

Doesn’t that sound wonderful? Some of us are quite productive, and some of us are quite needy. If those who produce a surplus shared with the needy, wouldn’t that solve the problem of poverty? We can suppose it might, but there are problems. Who decides what wealth is surplus? Who decides whose needs should be satisfied? Who makes the productive share with the needy? Government? Well, according to Socialists, that is what government should do. Yet how does government decide what wealth is surplus? How does government decide whose needs should be satisfied? Without strife and conflict, how does government force the productive to share the fruit of their labors with the needy?

Human Rights And The Purpose Of Government

What exactly is the purpose of government? Is redistributing the wealth from the “rich” to the “poor” part of its function? That is not what Americans once believed. At the founding, the leaders of our nation wrote the Declaration of Independence. Here is what they said about the purpose of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (from here (law.indiana.edu))

“Experts” now refer to the rights identified in the Declaration as “negative” rights. Here is a brief explanation of the concept.

A negative right is defined as a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions. (from here (psychology.wikia.org))

What are “positive rights”? Consider President Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s Second Bill of Rights. Here is a summary of what Roosevelt offered.

  • A useful and remunerative job or a business that produces a decent living.
  • Adequate food and clothing and recreation.
  • Freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
  • A decent home.
  • Adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
  • Adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
  • A good education.

How did Roosevelt justify a government guarantee of these rights? He used this line.

All of these rights spell security (emphasis added). And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

As the result of the programs Roosevelt and others implemented to create “positive rights, now we cannot balance the budget, and the percentage of the budget dedicated to paying off interest is growing. In fact, our government’s budget has become so huge and unwieldy, we have lost control of it. In spite (or because of) of all those good intentions, something is going wrong. What?

Consider that advocates for “positive rights” never seriously debated those questions.

  • Who decides what wealth is surplus?
  • Who decides whose needs should be satisfied?
  • Who makes the productive share with the needy?

What did the advocates for “positive rights”do? They just started implementing their wonderful programs and amended our Constitution by judicial fiat. Thus, without the due process required for a constitutional amendment, we have fundamentally transformed the character of our government.

We can argue until doomsday whether or not so-call negative and positive rights exist, but there is a practical problem. Can we trust our government — trust politicians 🤔 — both to protect our “negative rights” and to give us our “positive rights”. Obviously not! This poses huge a conflict of interest. Don’t politicians gain influence by spending our money, not by saving it? Don’t politicians gain power by redistributing our wealth, not by letting us keep it?

Why can’t we trust politicians? Look in a mirror. You and I are the problem. We cannot trust each other. So, of course, we cannot trust any of the politicians we elect. Look at President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama. The presidency is the highest office of our land, and presidential elections result in the highest voter turnouts. So, our presidents should be the people most honored by all of us. Nevertheless, whether a Democrat or a Republican wins, nearly half of the population thoroughly distrusts the winner. Why? Doesn’t each of us fear the politicians we don’t trust will take what we have and give it to their supporters?

What is the solution? We must learn to help each other cheerfully.

2 Corinthians 9:6-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; as it is written,

He scattered abroad, he gave to the poor,
His righteousness endures forever.”

If we want to protect each other’s rights, we must stop selling our votes to politicians. Government “charity” is not based upon love. Instead, politicians “redistribute the wealth” to buy votes.

What is to come?

  • Part 2 – Organizing Principles: We each belong to special interests groups? What kind of special interests groups do we belong to? How was the Constitution designed to counter our natural self-interests and keep them under control.
  • Part 3 – The Motivation And The Sin: What is the basic flaw in Socialism? What makes Socialism fundamentally immoral?
This entry was posted in 2019 Election, Citizen Responsibilities and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to SOCIALISM AND CIVIL WAR — PART 1

  1. Tom,

    Looking forward to your next posts to help discern how secularism originated into becoming a major influence of the present killjoy heretical path being taken n our Nation

    Your post verses about cheerfulness hjnt at the core reasoning in my opinion.

    Regards and goodwill blogging

  2. Tom Salmon says:

    @scatterwisdom

    Interesting the way you put it. Secularism is killjoy.

  3. Tom,

    I posted today my reasoning why Secularism is a killjoy, in my and I surmise King Solomon’s opinion.

    https://rudymartinka.com/2019/09/19/king-solomon-secularism-a-killjoy-path-post-two/

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

Comments are closed.