Connect with us

Opinion

Socialism, by Any Other Name, Would Smell as Sour

Socialism dampens the human spirit, thwarts the drive towards excellence, and convinces entrepreneurs to not proceed boldly. 

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

Ask Americans, particularly young Americans, whether or not socialism is a good idea and some will say yes. When you ask why, they offer vague notions about equality but socialism does not deliver that. Socialism relates to government control of the economy and has little to do with equality. Socialism in any form, quickly becomes undesirable. Here are compelling reasons why.

1) The redistribution aspect of socialism means that the government takes money from one person and gives it to another. Elsewhere, this would be seen as theft, but governments regard it as some kind of justice. 

2) Socialist policies result in higher taxes. If people are paying half or more of what they have earned, how enthusiastic will they be about working more, to benefit themselves, or their organizations, or society in general?

3) For socialism to be effective, a government needs to be nearly omniscient in its ability to equitably allocate the country’s wealth. At no time in history has this occurred, so why would it suddenly work now?

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

4) Socialist run governments seek equality of outcomes, which is always ruinous. Eventually, all citizens are equally impoverished, dispirited, and distraught.

5) Socialism claims to offer necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, and healthcare for free, but it has to tax more and more.

6) Socialism is monopolistic, where legislators have the ability to increase prices, reduce the quality of goods and services, and yet remain in power because, indeed, competition doesn’t exist.

7) Socialism hampers effective medical care, as witnessed at government-run health facilities over many decades, which have resulted in more waste, long lines for patients, questionable practices, scandal, and corruption.

8) Some people believe that socialism leads to a better environment. Globally,   the most restrictive and anti-free market nations are the most impoverished and the most polluted. 

9) Socialism thwarts the ability of markets to function effectively. Thus a general decline follows in what is produced, and how well it is distributed. Since socialism is contrary to the profit motive, there is no drive for improving lives or wealth creation.

10) Socialist governments grab more and more power and act contrary to the needs of its citizens. Where socialism reigns, people are discontent.

Scandinavia is No Beacon

Proponents often point to Scandinavia as a model for socialism, but their tax rates are exceedingly high. In Denmark, it is well above 50%, not merely for the rich. Scandinavia also has a value-added tax which commands 25% of everything including food. Hence, the value added tax is regressive, impacting lower income people because they’re spending a larger portion of their income.

People claim that healthcare is free in the Scandinavian countries, but it’s paid through taxes and the coverage is not as good as in the U.S. The wait times are longer and the most prosperous citizens purchase private health insurance because their public health coverage is simply inferior. 

And Now This

Even larger issues linger, as to why socialism always fails: Socialism dampens the human spirit, thwarts the drive towards excellence, and convinces entrepreneurs to not proceed boldly. 

Socialism, even Bernie Sander’s ‘Democratic socialism’ if such a government actually exists, ensures that despite your brilliance, hard work, and level of calculated risk, you will not be rewarded accordingly. The government will impose limits on what you can do, where you can operate, how much you can expand, who you need to hire, and how much you can earn.

Perhaps worst of all, socialism requires that someone make judgment calls – decides who the winners and losers are, who gets funded and who doesn’t, whose idea merits exploration and whose does not, and what’s good for the populace and what isn’t.

Capitalism Wins

In capitalism, one might encounter the depravity of Cardi B, the theatrics of Samantha Bee, and the degeneracy of Hunter B. Yet, capitalism is better by far than all the rest. It is the only system that has brought prosperity to legions of citizens in the countries. 

Considering the breakthroughs benefitting people around the globe, such as the smartphone, the Internet, pacemakers, or Lasik surgery, what socialist society has ever spawned innovative entrepreneurs found in every state and every county in America?

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week