Anti-Social And Anti-Socialism

I'm anti-social. I've said it before. But I recognize that most people aren't like me. They enjoy interacting with others and want to instill the same values in those whom they rear. And, to a degree, I accept that judgment. Society requires socialization.

Share. And care. They're among the first lessons we teach our children in jargon and political correctness. We see them as necessary steps in that socialization. And they are. In order to get along you have to go along. That's the theory, but the theory is stifling us as members of a democratic commonwealth. We've turned into a nation of sheep that would not be recognized by our Founding Fathers. For example – although it's not the focus of this discussion – the concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion have been converted into the freedom to say only what is acceptable to the loudest and most dogmatic among us (lest your right to speak be withdrawn), and freedom from religion. But I won't dwell on those perversions of America's philosophy today. I have another concern on my mind. Taxes.

Yes, taxes. I don't question their legitimacy. They have an important place in managing our government and our lives, and they're prescribed in the Constitution – primarily to pay debts and to provide for the defense of our country and the protection of our citizens.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States

Who can argue with that? But, of course, the devil is in the details. Who gets taxed, and how much? And what is the meaning of “Welfare,” which seems to be related to “the common Defence [sic] ... of the United States?”

For most Americans the answers to these questions are uncomplicated: tax those who have more money than I do, and provide for me whatever I believe I need for my welfare. Perhaps that's too much of a simplification, but I suspect that it doesn't miss the mark by much. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement (and its clones) made the will of “the People” clear: tax the rich (“the 1%”) and provide everyone else with whatever he or she wants. That, however, would seem to be a direct contradiction of the philosophy of most of those who wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their view was that people were

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

and that, in accordance with John Locke, “pursuit of happiness” meant “estate.” Locke also wrote

Reason, which is that Law [“Natural Law”] teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.

And

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.

It's unlikely that Locke, or the Founding Fathers, would have understood or accepted Marx's view (actually it was stated [in French of course] by Louis Blanc nearly a quarter of a century earlier)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It represents a socialist philosophy which favors the redistribution, by government edict, of one's possessions. It's forced sharing. It's a system that denies the individual the “unalienable [sic] Right” to dispose of his or her property as (s)he sees fit (including the right to pass it on to children). It reflects the envy of the possessions of others, and the readiness to give away or take what isn't yours. And by demanding that kind of action from the government they rationalize it as a societal need. But whatever the claimed justification for such redistribution, it (including a punitive tax system designed to accomplish its ends) is no more than theft. But calling it “redistribution” makes it sound so much better. It makes it sound like sharing and caring. And we all know how idealistic and “right” that is.

When we teach our children to share, however, we are teaching them to voluntarily provide others with the things that are important to them. We are less sympathetic when others noisily make demands of them. And we're unlikely to tolerate an outside party taking from our children and giving to the squeaky wheels. There's a difference between charity and extortion.

When we think about the principle of respect for private property it is worth remembering that it is an old precept. And perhaps the ancient proclamation of that principle played a part in our founders' thinking as it should in ours.

You shall not covet ... anything that belongs to your neighbor.