Contemplate the history of socialism since its first political manifestation in Bolshevik Russia in 1917. Consider the list of countries have had, at one point or another, self-identified as “socialist.”
Now, check out this little clip.
One notion especially caught my attention: the observation that socialism is an idea so good it must be defended at gunpoint.
Why, given the ample history available to us, including a death toll that exceeds 100 million and poverty, oppression and privation of billions, do people still think socialism is a good idea? What are we to make of all those who risked their lives looking to escape socialist countries, many of whom were killed? What are we to learn from the walls, the barbed wire, the guard towers and all the other measures that have been used to keep people inside socialist nations? Wouldn’t socialism, if it were so great, draw people in to socialist nations rather than requiring force to keep them in?
The answer is, of course, that socialism is antithetical to liberty. Spin, idealism and wishful thinking aside, it is irrefutable that socialism is the application of force by government upon its citizens. The arguments to justify this fundamental violation of individual liberty range far and wide, but ultimately come down to “we will do to you what we think is best, and you’re not allowed to say ‘no’ .”
How do socialism’s defenders justify socialism in the face of this reality?
Some argue that the 20th century socialists simply didn’t do it right. This is called a nirvana fallacy in that it derides real examples through comparison to nebulous ideals. Given how many times socialism has been tried and failed, I’d say that it’s had ample chance to prove itself.
Some argue that what they propose is “democratic socialism,” as if the coercive root can be waved away with the addition of an adjective. This is silliness, of course. Socialism, democratic or otherwise, requires coercion.
Some argue that they don’t actually advocate for socialism, that modern progressivism does not share fundamental commonalities with socialism in that the former does not mandate state ownership of the means of production. Nevertheless, progressivism involves big government coercion, and is different from socialism in details rather than fundamentally. According-to-Hoyle socialism is merely one of many versions of coercive government, all of which do far more harm than good.
Some argue that coercion is necessary to address the fundamental inequities of capitalism and free markets. But, not only is there no basis in any premise of liberty for coercive correction of what some deem unfair, history makes it clear that the poor in free, capitalist societies are far better off than the poor in socialist societies. This, despite whatever greater inequality may exist. So, again, the empirical evidence stands against socialism.
Some argue that coercion exists in all forms of government, and that coercion that best serves the many is better than coercion that benefits the few. The first part of this argument is correct. There are times, even in free societies, when coercion is proper. When someone harms or murders someone else, the state uses its power to punish the perpetrator. When someone steals that which belongs to another, the state uses its power to punish the perpetrator. These are legitimate uses of coercion in a free society, because they are rooted in the state’s proper role as protector of individuals and their rights. However, it is wrong for the state to use coercion to benefit some at the expense of others, even in societies that are considered free and non-socialist. With a hat tip to Penn Jillette, how can we justify pointing a gun at someone in order to build a library?
If the statist ideas found in socialism, communism, progressivism et al are so good, why is it that so many people oppose them? Why do so many look to flee from under them? Why, in America, has there been a steady migration from big-government states to small-government states? Why have more than three million people left California in the past 25 years? Why did Texas gain four Congressional seats in the 2010 apportionment?
People “vote with their feet,” both in closed nations like the Soviet Union and Cuba and in open, federalist nations like America. While many do indeed like socialism (either because, selfishly, it works for them or because they’re ignorant of its realities), many, many do not, and are willing to disrupt and risk their lives to escape its clutches.
“Ideas so good they must be defended at gunpoint” is a harsh indictment of big government ideas, but it is accurate and it is fair. And, if you think that big government is beautiful despite the fact that it absolutely requires taking away people’s freedom, I suggest you reflect on the many who have risked life and limb to escape it.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters