Editor’s Note: I came across the title argument on social media today, so I pulled this one out of the archives. FEE is the Foundation for Economic Education, , the “first libertarian organization in the United States,” founded in 1946 by Leonard Read, and is a great resource for those interested in liberty. From May 2018.
Another great piece! “How we pay for these services can be debated, but paying for them isn’t “redistribution” by any normal definition of the term. This is further reinforced by looking at what is clearly redistribution, i.e. the services where government takes money from some people in order to give it, in some form, to others. There’s a case to be made for fee-for-service. Use a public road, it makes sense you contribute to its upkeep. There’s no case, in a free society, to be made for taking, by force, the fruit of one’s efforts merely to give it to someone else.”
Seems to me that the socialism du jour in the US is of the fascistic variety. In our case since they haven't totally ditched the Constitution yet, there is a ruling class and at different times and places one cannot tell if the corporates run the government or the other way around since the corporates will agree to rules which create barriers to entry for others. They disguise this to the voters by pretending to be compassionate towards certain groups by giving them money they did not earn as if money will solve, rather than create character issues. The left also loves to muddle up the definition of this term too by using the term right wing to describe them so that they can tar conservatives. Then they try to accuse us of racial animus like the German Nazis had against the Jews and other brands of humans which they deemed impure. That's all backwards.
Oh, absolutely. They figured out that there's no point in assuming the responsibility of ownership when they can simply impose controls from without, appropriate the fruits of success, and walk away from the failures that they create or exacerbate.
Another great piece! “How we pay for these services can be debated, but paying for them isn’t “redistribution” by any normal definition of the term. This is further reinforced by looking at what is clearly redistribution, i.e. the services where government takes money from some people in order to give it, in some form, to others. There’s a case to be made for fee-for-service. Use a public road, it makes sense you contribute to its upkeep. There’s no case, in a free society, to be made for taking, by force, the fruit of one’s efforts merely to give it to someone else.”
Seems to me that the socialism du jour in the US is of the fascistic variety. In our case since they haven't totally ditched the Constitution yet, there is a ruling class and at different times and places one cannot tell if the corporates run the government or the other way around since the corporates will agree to rules which create barriers to entry for others. They disguise this to the voters by pretending to be compassionate towards certain groups by giving them money they did not earn as if money will solve, rather than create character issues. The left also loves to muddle up the definition of this term too by using the term right wing to describe them so that they can tar conservatives. Then they try to accuse us of racial animus like the German Nazis had against the Jews and other brands of humans which they deemed impure. That's all backwards.
Oh, absolutely. They figured out that there's no point in assuming the responsibility of ownership when they can simply impose controls from without, appropriate the fruits of success, and walk away from the failures that they create or exacerbate.