NOTE: This post is meant to be read hand-in-hand with “What Is ‘Freedom?” If you have not already done so, it would be wise to stop and take the time to read the first post on ‘Freedom’ before proceeding to read this post on ‘Liberty.’

‘Liberty.’  This is a big word, and it has many possible meanings — some of which may even contradict each other.  So, before we start trying to decide what it means, let’s start by looking up the definition closest to that understanding held by our Founders:

LIBERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.*

* [Note: the remainder of the Websters 1828 definition of ‘Liberty’ can be found at the bottom of this post.]

At this point, I would ask you to recall our discussion on ‘Freedom.’  If you will remember, we noted how the notion of ‘Freedom’ can be carried to excess; an excess our Founders referred to as ‘Licentiousness.’  Licentiousness is a natural enemy of both ‘Freedom’ as well as ‘Liberty.’  This is because, when one person is free to do whatever they wish, the natural moral failings of human nature will cause all of us to transgress upon the ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ of others.  This is what the Founders understood as ‘The State of Nature: ‘ a condition of general lawlessness in which there is no social order and where each individual is at war with every other individual.  Thus, in this sense, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ can lead to lawlessness, which is the enemy of ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ in that it tramples on individual ‘Freedoms’ and ‘Liberties.’  Confused yet? I hope not, because this is important to understand.

You see, it is a paradox: ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ can only exist in their most perfect and complete form when there are absolutely no restraints on what we can do.  If we want to do something, we are ‘Free’ or at ‘Liberty’ to do it without any consequence.  This is the ‘Liberty’ in meaning #1 above.  However, at the same time, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ cannot exist in their most complete and perfect form because they are self-defeating concepts.  It’s a flawed analogy, but it is sort of like having too much fun.  You can never have too much fun, but, by the time you actually have had too much fun, you are generally dead from it.  And this is the problem with ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty:’ the more you have, the less you have.  In order for either to exist, there has to be some sort of restraint on the way we exercise our ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty.’  This leads us to what often appears to be a contradiction in defining ‘Liberty:’ the need for restraint on a thing that is defined — in part — as the lack of restraint.

Here is where most people end up stumbling when trying to understand ‘Liberty.’  They do not see that this restraint must be self-imposed.  If it comes from any source outside of the individual, it is trampling on that individual’s ‘Liberty.’  However, when that restraint comes from within, willingly, it does not represent an absence of ‘Liberty,’ but an act thereof.  You see, just because I can do something, it does not mean I must.  I am free to refrain from doing that thing.  This is ‘Natural Liberty:’ the ability to do whatever we will, but, at the same time, it includes a self-imposed restraint that keeps us from doing anything that would trample on the ‘Liberty’ of another.  This is the meaning of ‘Liberty’ in meaning #2 above.

Finally, we come to the third definition of ‘Liberty.’  If the first two definitions have not caused you to stumble yet, then hold on because this one usually gets people sideways.  This is the notion of ‘Civil Liberty:’ meaning #3 above.  Now, as stated above, ‘Civil Liberty’ only includes those restrictions required to allow the fullest exercise of ‘Natural Liberty’ and ‘Liberty’ in civil society.  But that is where people tend to go off the rails: in determining what is necessary from what isn’t.  The moment people start to assert that things such as guaranteed housing or income, or free healthcare and education are ‘necessary’ in order for a person to be ‘Free,’ then we have jumped from the definition of ‘Liberty’ to that of ‘Tyranny.’  This is because all such things require that people be forced to work against their will for the sake of others.  In other words, these sort of things — things some people like to call ‘positive rights’ — require that some people in society must have their ‘Liberty’ taken away so that others can have their version of ‘Liberty,’ which is — inevitably — just a different form of slavery, most often called indentured servitude or serfdom.

Therefore, for the purposes of this blog, Natural Law and the Social Contract, unless otherwise stated, ‘Liberty’ will be understood as the freedom from external restraint on our individual will, but accompanied by a voluntary internal restraint against exercising our free will in a way that infringes on the ‘liberty’ of others (i.e. adherence to Natural Law, as understood by Locke — not Hobbs).

LIBERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4. Political liberty is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. Liberty in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.

7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.

8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.

9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.

10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.

To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.

To set at liberty to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.

To be at liberty to be free from restraint.

Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals.

First occurrence in the Bible(KJV): Leviticus 25:10

Leviticus 25:10   1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) — The ‘Founders’ Bible

¹⁰ And ye shall hallow that year, even the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty in the land to all the ^[a]inhabitants thereof: it shall be the Jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his ^[b]possession, and every man shall return unto his family.

Now — for extra credit — tell us why Leviticus 25: 10 is significant to the American Founding and the notion of ‘Liberty.’

Before we begin, I want to issue a warning.  If you consider yourself to be a Socialist, Progressive or a Conservative, I am most likely going to provide you with a definition of ‘Fascism’ with which you are vehemently going to disagree.  So, with that warning issued, let’s just jump right in and start stirring the pot.

Modern America is a Fascist nation!

Sadly, this is true, and it has been for some time.  But, before you start lining up your arguments listing all the reasons I am wrong, let’s first define what ‘Fascism’ actually is, then we’ll see if you still disagree.  We’ll start with the dictionary’s definition:

Definition of fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality— J. W. Aldridge

[NOTE: we must be extremely diligent in dealing with the definition of ‘Fascism.’  This is because the definition has been made into a political weapon.  As such, it is prone to being altered — in real time.  Therefore, we should do everything we can to look for definitions of ‘Fascism’ that are both printed in hard format and date to a time prior to the start of this millennium.  Otherwise, we are liable to accept a definition that is part of a political weapon intended to smear political opponents and not the actual meaning of the word.]

The term, ‘Fascism,’ was coined by the first Fascist leader, Benito Mussolini.  He named it after an old Roman symbol.  Basically, a bundle of rods or reeds tied together to make them stronger and incorporating an axe head to make them into a weapon.  Unions started as an example of the ‘Fascist’ ideal symbolized by this bundle of reeds made into an axe.  A modern equivalent of this same symbol is known as ‘Community Organizing.’  In short, Fascism was about uniting different minority groups under a single dictatorial leader who would then ‘discern’ the will of these people and exercise the power of government to affect whatever changes that ‘discerned will’ required.  However, as with all promises made by Socialists, in practice, ‘Fascism’ was nothing more than a dictatorship.

Now, I do not want you to take my word for any of this.  No, since he invented it, Mussolini is the ultimate authority on what ‘Fascism’ means.  Therefore, I want you to take Mussolini’s word for what ‘Fascism’ means:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State–a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values–interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

Re-read that last quote from Mussolini, then read this one from another well-known Fascist:

“In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nation’s moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end.”

~ Adolf Hitler  Volkischer Beobachter, 23 March 1933

If we allow the two men best known for defining ‘Fascism’ to do so, then it is clear that ‘Fascism’ is a totalitarian form of government where people are allowed to own private property, but only so far as they use it in a way with which the government agrees or directs.  As we will soon see, this most definitely applies to the current state of the U.S. government.  But first, we need to deal with a part of the definition of ‘Fascism’ that is probably going to upset our Socialist friends.  This is the fact that ‘Fascism’ is Socialism!

This is an absolute, indisputable fact: ‘Fascism’ is Socialism — just a different flavor of Socialism from that which most Socialists want you to eat.  We know this because Mussolini and Hitler both said it is true.  It is even in the very name, NAZI, which is an abbreviation for ‘National Socialist Workers’ Party.‘  Therefore, we should most accurately call ‘Fascism’ by a more accurately descriptive name, ‘National Socialism.’  Either way, ‘Fascism’ is Socialism, and the fact is just that: a fact.  The matter is not open for debate: it is true by definition, and the laws of logic say that one cannot rationally argue with a definition.  That ends this matter: ‘Fascism’ is best defined as ‘National Socialism.’

Now, let’s return to my statement that modern America is Fascist.

First, this nation is very nationalistic, but it is not quite ‘nationalist.’  By that, I mean we are still a patriotic nation, but we do not worship the nation (yet).  However, in recent years, we have started to focus on an ‘America First’ trend in policy.  Taken together, this gives modern America a decidedly ‘Nationalist’ flavor to it.  All that remains to determine is whether or not America is ‘Socialist.’

Under ‘Fascism,’ people can hold some semblance of private property, but the extent to which that property is actually private depends largely upon whether or not the ownership does what the government wants done.  Otherwise, in a ‘Fascist’ nation, the government is in total control.  Is there anything about the state of modern U.S. government that might lead one to believe it meets the definition of ‘total control’ over the country?  We’ll start with Mussolini’s description first:

“…it [govt] makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions,…”

There can be no doubt that a symbiotic relationship between corporate America and the government definitely exists, but are the two equal, or is one over the other?  ell, TARP demonstrated that the government can and will dictate to private industry.  It even forced banks to take TARP money they did not need or want, thereby forcing those banks to comply with the government’s dictates or face legal penalties.  Obama also demonstrated that the government can and will take private property from one citizen and give it to another, or from a corporation and give it to a union in his bailout of he auto unions.  The government has also taken over the healthcare industry, even going to the point of forcing citizens to buy a product or be fined, then dictating to the industry what products they must provide and what they can charge to do so.  The government has gone so far as to demonstrate that its reach even extends to the individual, whose property is routinely taken for no other reason that the government has decided it should be used in a way that generates more taxes.  What’s more, much of this was done without any legal process whatsoever.  By definition, that is ‘dictation.’  So, yes, the modern U.S. government can and does wield dictatorial power over American industry and private property.

Does the government have any control over the social institutions in modern America?  Well, yes.  Here again, it has in the past and is talking again about controlling the press and other similar mediums through the ‘fairness doctrine.’  We have government regulations over social media, as well.  Government also controls art through its granting and denial of monies.  Currently, we are seeing that social media can openly discriminate based on race, religion and political orientation — so long as they discriminate against the enemies of the government.  True, the government is making noise as if this is a wrong that the government will correct, but this discrimination violates laws already on the books and the government does nothing to enforce them.  Truth be told, there is hardly a social institution the government does not control by dictate.

This leaves the educational system, at both the grade and university levels.  Grade school attendance has been made mandatory, and the national curriculum set by ‘Common Core.’  Home-schoolers have also been dictated to by being forced to meet government-set standards of education.  Religious and moral sentiments are being forced on children in the schools — often against their parents’ will and teaching.  Heck, children are even being removed from their homes if the parents object to what the schools are teaching to their children.  Then there are the colleges, where conservatism is openly discriminated against by the university administrations.  Government also took over the student loan programs.  Here again, the truth is, in modern America, the government has dictatorial control over the education system.

Looking at Hitler’s definition of ‘dictatorial’ once more, we see that it agrees with where we are now in America:

The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end.”

As we just illustrated, modern American government meets all the requirements of both Hilkter’s and Mussolini’s definition of how a ‘Fascist’ government operates.  So, we have a national flavor to a dictatorial government.  Ergo — by definition — modern America is ‘Fascist!’

Now for the ‘fun’ part.  This is why the American Left is so opposed to the modern government.  Because the modern American Left is Communist, and Communism is a form of Socialism naturally opposed to ‘Fascism,’ the modern American Left is a natural enemy of the current ‘Fascist’ American government.  It’s like red ants (the American Left) being tossed into a nest of black ants (the modern American government): whenever they come into contact with each other, there will be a fight to the death.

If you will please excuse me, I am going to charge head-long through a politically and emotionally charged minefield in an effort to help whoever will take the time to actually listen to and carefully consider what I have to say.  The goal here is to better understand what the modern issue of ‘Racism’ in America is really all about.

First, I wish people would stop accusing people of ‘Racism’ when they really mean ‘bigotry.’  I am not going to bother with the definition of ‘Racism’ — not yet, anyway.  But I am going to ask you to take a moment to read the definition of ‘bigotry:’

For reasons that will soon become clear, I am using the definition of ‘bigotry’ given in the Websters Dictionary 1828:

Bigotry

BIG’OTRY, noun Obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed, or to certain tenets; unreasonable zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect or opinion; excessive prejudice.

1. The practice or tenet of a bigot.

Why did I start with bigotry when I said I was going to discuss Racism in America?  Because of the way the whole issue of ‘Racism’ came to be.  You see, prior to the coining of the term, we still had the problem of Racism, but it was called by different names.  It was discussed using words like ‘bigotry,’ but also ‘prejudice.’  Back then, before the term, ‘Racism,’ was coined, people understood that all humans hold prejudices, and people who hold prejudices against other people based  on matters of race, ethnicity, religion or political ideology had a special form of ‘prejudice’ known as ‘bigotry.’  This is an inherent part of the human condition.  It has always been that way, and, until this universe is remade, with new laws, it will always be that way.  Man cannot change this.  All Man can do is work to insure that bigotry based on things that have no baring on moral law (things like race) are never allowed to become institutionalized in our laws.

According to ‘The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of American English Words,” ‘Racism‘ was first used in 1936, and the term ‘racist,’ in 1932 (pg.630).  Prior to this time, the term, “racist’ and ‘Racism’ were not used in America, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.  What’s more, the term was created in America, by Progressives (i.e. American Socialists).  Now, here is the really interesting part of this story: the Socialists who invented the term, ‘Racism,’ were also part of the Eugenics movement.

I say this is interesting for two reasons.  First, Hitler got his ideas for creating a ‘Master Race’ from these same American Eugenics ‘scientists.’  These are the same Eugenics ‘scientists’ who started Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood was created to eliminate ‘undesirables‘ from American society.  In this case, this primarily meant the elimination of the negro race.  This work continues today, and for the same reasons.

But there is another reason the term, ‘Racism,’ was invented: to use it as a hammer against the culture the Progressives wanted to destroy — namely America.  By linking the notion of ‘Racism’ with the history of slavery in America, the Progressives have been able to create a political weapon that uses America’s cultural shame over the history of slavery to coerce government and business into doing what the Progressives demand of them.  If government and industry to not comply, they are supporting Racism.  It is also used to silence anyone who objects to the Progressive agenda.  If opponents do not shut up, they are labeled a ‘Racist’ and destroyed.  But none of this has anything to do with fighting institutional Racism based on racial bigotry or discrimination.  We know this because the Progressives were born out of the very same people who defended slavery in America.  Progressives come from the same stock of people who created the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.  Progressives helped to create the KKK.  Progressives created Planned Parenthood to eliminate as many Negros as possible.  Progressives wrote and defended the segregation laws in the 1960’s.  Today, these same Progressives claim to be fighting ‘Racism,’ but, in truth, they are the actual racists in our society, and they are using America’s shame over our history of slavery and real Racism to destroy the nation.

This is what ‘Racism’ is in America today: a political weapon that is being used to coerce government and corporate policy and to silence and destroy any and all of their political opponents.  In short, it is a highly specialized form of Political Correctness.  It has no concern for minorities or race relations.  The truth is, the people who are using ‘Racism’ as a weapon are the very people who created the term and the practice.  They are the true racists in American society, and they have demonstrated this by destroying the very people they claim to be fighting to protect.  They defend Planned Parenthood even though Planned Parenthood was created to eliminate minorities.  They claim to be trying to help minorities by creating welfare programs even though it has been shown that these same welfare programs have destroyed the minority communities they were supposed to help.  Now they are destroying civil discourse and cultural unity in this country by claiming they are fighting to improve race relations.  And they do all of this by wielding the hammer they created: ‘Racism.’

Look, the Socialists (Progressives, etc) are not wrong in their observations (which is why they are so dangerous).  Institutionalized bigotry based on race is very real.  But it can only be addressed when it is just that: institutionalized. By ‘institutional Racism,’ I mean ‘Racism’ that is created, mandated and supported by law.   That is true ‘Racism:’ when it is a matter of law.  But this will not help the people who cray ‘Racism!’ in our society today because — honestly — we have not had institutional bigotry since the 1960’s.  Which means, America is no longer a ‘Racist’ nation.  So, if the Socialist admits this, how can they keep using the powerful and effective weapon they created?  The answer is: they can’t.  Therefore, their only coarse of action is to ignore reality and keep crying Racism by moving from real, institutional racism to individual prejudices and bigotries.  But that is tyranny in the truest sense because it demands that every individual conform to the way the Socialist says they must think.  In a free society, especially a Society organized to operate under Natural Law, the right to hold prejudices and bigotries against other people is not only a right, but a duty.  And while it may be wrong to hold a prejudice based on skin color, that is still a personal right in a free society.  Government has no business getting involved in individual prejudices.  To the extent that it assures bigotry based on race is not mandated by law, that is the limit of governmental authority in a free society.  But this is not enough for the ‘Race Baiters’ in our society today.  If they recognize the truth of reality, they lose one of their most potent weapons in the advancement of their tyranny.

Look, there is so much here that I wish I could explain, but it would require me to literally write a book to do so.  All I can do is urge you to start researching this for yourself because I know, if you do so, you will eventually realize that I am telling people the truth.  I do not make things up because I don’t have to do so.  The reality here is horrifying enough.  All I have to do is report it.  If the reader has any moral fiber at all, that will be enough to shock their conscience sensibilities.  But, for those who do not seek or even recognize the Truth, no amount of writing will ever reach them.  Their minds are literally depraved.  This is the state of the real ‘Socialist:’ the person who knows and understands what they are doing and why.  However, I do not excuse the rank-and-file ‘Socialist.’  By willingly aligning themselves with the real Socialist, whether knowingly or out of ignorance, the rank-and-file still allies themselves to evil.  For that, there can be no excuse.  There can be forgiveness — if the rank-and-file recognizes their mistake and turns away from it —  but their alliance with evil cannot be excused.

ADDITIONAL READING:

Social Engineering: Eugenics And The Progressives  (NOTE: the Glenn Beck video clip in this link is a MUST watch!)

DEFENDING THE LANGUAGE: Racism vs. Bigotry vs. Culture

How many times have you heard a Socialist accusing Capitalists of being rich, heartless and/or greedy?  If I have heard it once, I have heard it…, well, just about every time I try to listen to a Socialist.  The Capitalist — all Capitalists — are heartless and greedy and they get rich by exploiting the labor of their employees.  And, though they never say so, the Socialist almost always implies that this makes them morally superior to the Capitalist.  The solution is always the same: put the morally superior Socialist in charge of correcting the immoral system of Capitalism by putting the Socialist in charge of the government.  Well, where — exactly — have these Socialists found the angels necessary to run this perfectly altruistic government the want to set up for us?  Because, the last time I checked, all governments are run by people, and all people share the same moral failings; among which are greed and a lack of concern for the welfare of those who stand in the way of them satisfying their personal desires.  Or, to put it another way, no one is above being or doing evil — especially when they are in control of the government.

I am serious about this: where are these Socialist angels?  Unless they can be produced for the rest of us to examine, I am going to hold the Socialist in much less esteem than the Capitalist.  This is because the Capitalist is much more honest than the Socialist.  The Capitalist admits that he/she is working to make a profit.  They do not make any secret about what they are willing to pay those who wish to work for them.  Paying an employee is not ‘exploitation,’ it is a mutually agreed upon contract between the employer and employee.  By definition, it is impossible for such an arrangement to meet the criteria for ‘exploitation.’  Nor does the Capitalist apologize if they are successful and manage to acquire a great deal of wealth.  The Capitalist admits to all of this, but the Socialist never admits to his/her true agenda.

The Socialist is just as greedy as the Capitalist.  Just listen to them.  Everything they want and do to get it is driven by the desire for more money, and — with that money — the acquisition of power — so they can acquire more money.  But the Socialist cannot see themselves as they really are or, if they do see it, they will not admit it.  Neither will the Socialist be honest about what they offer their supporters.  Whereas the Capitalist is honest about the wage he/she offers employees, and the product or service they offer their customers, the Socialist offers lies about how much more money they will give to those who support/vote for them and lies about where that money will come from.  When the Socialist gets into power, the only people who seem to end up with more money is the Socialist.  The people who supported them always seem to get poorer, and more dependent upon the Socialist, which creates a dependency the Socialist then exploits to acquire more money and power.  In short, the Socialist becomes a corrupt Capitalist whose ‘capital’ is the people and whose product is dependency.

The Socialist also likes to call the Capitalist evil.  Why?  Because the Socialist is jealous of the Capitalist  You see, those employees that the Socialist claims are being exploited agreed to work for the money that the Capitalist offered them.  If they are not happy with what they agreed to do, they can leave, and go do something else — like start their own business.  However, if the employee wishes to work for the Capitalist, then the Capitalist pays them to learn a skill while being part of a business that serves other people.  But the Socialist — who lacks any socially redeeming skill set — looks at this relationship and says that it is heartless.  The Socialist claims that the worker is stuck, and has no choice but to work for the Capitalist.  Thus, the employee is really a victim of the Capitalist, and the only reason the employee is not as rich as the Capitalist is because the Capitalist is stealing the employees labor.  Therefore, if the employee wants to make what the Socialist tells him/her they deserve, all the employee has to do is vote for the Socialist. What’s more, as soon as the employee starts voting for the Socialist, the employee immediately becomes a ‘virtuous victim class.’  See how much more the Socialist cares about the ‘working class’ than the Capitalist?  In fact, the Socialist cares so much, he erases the employees individual identity and turns him in to a ‘class.’  Surely it goes without saying that this makes the Socialist a better, more moral person than the Capitalist can ever be — right?  WRONG!  All that happens when the Socialist gains control is the employee gets exploited by the Socialist who, now that they are in government, lives off the taxes of the employee — taxes the Socialist immediately raises in the name of ‘justice’ for the employee’s new ‘class,’ a class the Socialist is now exploiting.

On the other hand, the Capitalist has a rare skill set.  If it was not rare, then everyone would be a Capitalist.  But most people are employees, not Capitalists.  Why?  Because most employees lack the skill set required to get pass the government hurtles of licensing and regulating necessary to let them raise the money to buy the property and equipment and to buy the raw materials and to hire and train the employees  necessary to produce a product that serves other people and to then market and distribute that product at a profit so the Capitalist can pay the necessary taxes and wages to keep the whole process going.  Oh, and if any of the links in this chain fails, it is the Capitalist who goes bankrupt.  The employee just takes the skill set their failed employer paid to teach them down the road and uses that skill set to work for the failed employer’s competition.  However, if the Capitalist succeeds, he/she might eventually offer stocks in their company so they can raise the money to grow that business, which means they will hire even more people.  Oh, and by selling stock in their business, they give people who lack the skills needed to do what they do a chance to buy part of their company.  So, what is the Capitalist really doing?  The Capitalist is risking everything to give other people a job helping him/her make a product or provide a service that makes the lives of other people better.  If the Capitalist fails to do this, they go out of business.  So, when we are honest about the Capitalist, we see that he/she serves other people by giving them jobs and by making a product or providing a service that makes the lives of other humans better.  Still, according to the Socialist, this is all greed.  It can only be a virtue when the Capitalist focuses on making hi/her employees rich and nothing more.  Therefore, the Capitalist is evil because he/she only cares about his/her own profits.  What could be more clear than that?

But what about the Socialist?  What does the Socialist do that gives people a job or produces a product or a service that actually makes the lives of other people better?  Nothing!  The Socialist does not produce anything, nor do they provide a service.  They only exist to exploit.  Either they live off the government or off grant money from other Socialists, but, either way, they live off the product of others without returning anything of value in return.  In the first case, where the Socialist lives off the government, the Socialist is ultimately stealing from the Capitalist by way of taxes.  This means the Socialist is also exploiting the employee to make themselves rich.  Worse, the Capitalist is forced to pay to support the Socialist, who is using the force of government to destroy the Capitalist’s business, put their employees out of work and leave their customers without the products and services they are trying to provide.  Or, put another way, the Socialist is trying to destroy the Capitalist to satisfy the Socialists thirst for money and power.

Then there is the Socialist who is funded by the likes of people such as George Soros.  Yes, Soros has made his money from Capitalism, but he is actually one of the people the Socialist claims to oppose.  Socialist Capitalists are actually the people from whom the Socialist claims to be protecting the working class.  This is because the Socialist Capitalist is actually a Fascist, which is when business gets in to bed with their Socialist buddies already in the government to pass laws that put their competition out of business.  This makes the Socialist-owned businesses more profitable, which allows George Soros to then manipulate the stock market and even the currency of other nations, thereby destroying the retirement savings of millions of people for his own personal gain.  Soros then takes that ill-gotten gain and uses it to put more Socialists in office so he can repeat the cycle, only on a grander scale.  And the whole time, the people helping Soros steal from the masses are pointing their fingers at real, honest Capitalists and blaming the system of Capitalism for the destruction they and their Socialist business partners have actually created.  Worse still, these Socialists have the nerve to demand that we think of them as the moral and virtual people in all of this.

So we arrive back at my original question:

Given that Socialism is a morally corrupt system, and that any and all who support a morally corrupt system are corrupt, themselves, where are such morally corrupt people going to find the angels that will be necessary to run a government which will be free of their same brand of moral corruption?

Dear reader, I have just explained the moral flaw in the entire Socialist platform: the Socialists are actually the people against whom they claim to be protecting you.  Look at what they say, then compare it to what they and their supporters do.  If you look hard enough, long enough, you will find that they are the ones doing the things they accuse the Capitalist of doing, which means they are the ones with the moral failures they assign to the Capitalist.  The Socialist is the one whose entire system is based on greed, not Capitalism.  The Socialist is the one who can only exist by exploiting others, not Capitalism.  Ultimately, when we examine how it works in practice, we will find that — while Capitalism can be corrupted — it is Socialism that actually starts out corrupt.  It’s very foundation is built upon false assumptions that go against the basic principles of Natural Law.  As such, it is not possible to make Socialism a ‘good’ system unless it is — literally — run by angels, and angels who have not fallen, at that.  This is because all men are prone to moral failings.  Therefore, the men and women the Socialists put into power to ‘fix’ the supposed failings of Capitalism are going to be just as greedy and heartless and will want to be just as rich as the Capitalist they are meant to replace.  Which then means that the Socialist will solve nothing: they will just replace the Capitalist with themselves — which is what they actually want but will not admit.  So, for the last time:

Where are these angels the Socialists need to run their government?

In my first post on Socialism, “What Is Socialism,” I noted that there are those who will claim that ‘democratic’ Socialism is different from the Socialism I was describing.  These people would argue that, under ‘democratic’ Socialism, the People vote on their leaders and, therefore, ‘democratic’ Socialism does not represent the certain tyranny to which I claimed all Socialism eventually leads.  Well, as much as these people would like to think otherwise, they are wrong!  Yes, I mean that the people who claim ‘democratic’ Socialism is immune from tyranny are factually wrong, and, rather than apologize for stating the obvious, or arguing over whether or not a fact is a fact, I will just prove why my statement is correct.

First, there is nothing inherently virtuous or moral in the opinion of the masses.  In fact, when it comes to matters of making the morally correct choice, popular opinion is nearly always wrong.  One need go no farther than to look at our own history.  If one thinks that the majority is always morally correct, then one cannot object to our history with racism, discrimination based on sex, child labor abuses or a whole host of things that we now consider to be wrong.  In fact, if the majority opinion is the determine factor of what is and is not moral, then there can be no such thing as morality at all. This is because the majority opinion can and does change with time — sometimes in days, or even hours.   This is why the Founders referred to majority rule as ‘The Tyranny of the Masses.’  And that means, even if the masses elect their leaders, you still have tyranny under Socialism, you’ve just let the masses pick their tyrant.

This leads us to the next reason that ‘democratic’ Socialism is just as tyrannical as any other flavor of Socialism.  In order to exist, Socialism must stand alone.  It cannot and will not tolerate opposition of any kind and in any form.  This is why Socialist government inevitably turn into one-Party governments.  Once this happens, you can vote for whomever you wish, but you will still be voting for someone the Party chose to be the next dictator.  Just ask anyone who has lived under a Socialist tyranny.  The Party may give you a hundred names.  It doesn’t matter.  Whichever one is elected will do whatever the Party tells them to do, which will be the exact same thing each of the other ninety-nine candidates would have done.  Either way, under ‘democratic’ Socialism, you are getting a dictator.

Finally, this brings us to Woodrow Wilson.  If you have not already done so, you should read some of his better known essays on The Presidency and proper Administration of government.*  If you’ll bother to put in the time, you’ll find that Wilson lamented the fact that Americans would not accept Communism by its proper name but, under a different name, they would swallow every part of it.  Wilson called this new name, ‘Progressivism.’  Wilson also dreamed of the day when the nation would be ‘scientifically administrated’ by elite groups of people who would be trained at elite colleges.  These ‘bureaucrats’ would be appointed to their positions for life, and would be beyond the control of the People.  But there would still be an election of the nations leader.  This person, according to Wilson, would be a charismatic individual who was capable of ‘discerning the will of the people.’  Wilson actually called him a ‘dictator,’ and he would be elected to enact this ‘discerned will of the People’ however he saw fit by directing the bureaucrats to do whatever this dictator had determined the People wanted them to do.  I am not exaggerating: this is exactly what Wilson envisioned and, if you will look closely, you will see that it has come to life — only, today, we call it ‘The Deep State.’  Either way, Wilson envisioned American Socialism, and was honest enough to call it by its name: dictatorship.  But here is the real kicker:

Wilson’s vision was ‘democratic’ Socialism!

And this is why there is no difference between Socialism and ‘democratic’ Socialism: because the very people who thought up and described both versions of this ideology said they are the same thing.  No amount of objecting will ever change this.  It is a fact, and it will always be a fact, and those who argue otherwise are just wrong!  Period!

ADDITIONAL READING:

POINTS TO PONDER: The ‘Conspiracy’ We Know as the ‘Progressive’ Movement

* NOTE: normally, I would link you to Wilson’s essays.  However, the web site I used to use for this is no longer reliable.  They have removed the more informative of Wilson’s essays and made the rest of their site all but useless by overly complicating the way you have to navigate the site.  So, until I can either find a new site — or better still — archive the reference material here on TRTC, I am going to post links to some of my older post which contain citations of relative sections of Wilson’s work to show support for my argument.