What do you think of when you hear someone described of as “liberal?” Do you think of someone who is a fan of big government and big taxes? Do you think of someone who is a rabid environmentalist? You know it wasn’t always that way. Until recent times, liberal meant “liberty loving.” A liberal was someone who despised government at all levels, as government is inimical to liberty. A person previously described as a “liberal” is now more accurately labeled a “classical liberal.” How did this happen to the word “liberal?” What a successful perversion of the language that a word now carries the meaning of its prior antonym.
What does it mean to be a socialist? I think that these days it is more provocative to label someone a liberal or “progressive” than a socialist. ”Socialism” is making a come back. For a while a socialist was thought of no differently than a communist. To label someone with either term was to label them with the other. Socialism implies that we’re all in this together and that one purpose of government is to confiscate then pool money to take care of everyone’s problems. Just as the original meaning of “liberal” is gone, the derogatory nature of the socialist label has been tempered. How can socialists be called out then if their liberty-crushing activities are to be smeared with deserving labels?
For years I have resented the desire of socialists (yes, they are on both sides of the aisle) to use Uncle Sam to confiscate my earnings and the future earnings of my children. Now I am thinking about things differently. You see, while I resent “sharing” property against my will, what I have come to understand is that it is the justification for this confiscation that commands resentment. Basically, others are sharing with me against my will: their problems, not their wealth. It occurs to me that this is the essence of socialism. One person’s problem is everyone’s problem. Your problems are mine, mine are yours. Embracing this concept precedes the theft necessary to “tidy things up,” to make things fair, to treat another’s problems. I wonder now if that should be the focus of property rights advocates, the denial of this concept, or, “your problems are yours, not mine.” After all, private property is secure once this problem sharing paradigm is rejected. Sharing problems with others that want no part of it is like giving someone tuberculosis or a venereal disease. I think this is a perfect analogy and therefore, I will henceforth refer to socialism as “gonorrhea socialism,” as this loaded phrase inevitably leads one to the faulty premise.
You say, “health care is a right!” I say, “you are trying to infect me with your gonorrhea socialism.” I say, “I don’t want your gonorrhea.” “Your gonorrhea is your problem.” ”I have no desire to share your venereal disease.” If I refuse to share your problems you will possibly realize that they are your problems to deal with not mine and therefore my property is safe.
If, however, I feel sorry for you and decide to shoulder some of the burden of your problems, that would be entirely up to me and would be called charity. My property would still be under my control and I would be dispensing with it as I see fit. That the gonorrhea socialists aren’t willing to make their own way supported by the good will of others explains the entitlement mentality in this country. I think it justified that those who believe that health care is a right should be labeled gonorrhea socialists. I would like to know of any alternative epithets that you can come up with.
G. Keith Smith, M.D.
How about just “Ethics Denialists”? Kind of interesting to think that if you were to remove ethics from political preference, you would only choose the ideology which provides the most immediate benefit: as a dog would choose to take the small treat 3 ft from him rather than the larger treat 10 ft from him. The point is if you remove ethics from politics, which was accomplished at the inception of politics, everybody wants the property of the those wealthier, and wants those poorer to respect their property rights. I would argue that neo-socialism has the same putrid smell as neo-conservatism mainly because either side removes justifiable ethics from their decision making. The only difference is that one is much worse at converting their lack of ethics into someone else’s property.
Comment by Alex — December 11, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
[...] Dr. G. Keith Smith on the subject of, um, a social disease: For years I have resented the desire of socialists (yes, they are on both sides of the aisle) to use Uncle Sam to confiscate my earnings and the future earnings of my children. Now I am thinking about things differently. You see, while I resent “sharing” property against my will, what I have come to understand is that it is the justification for this confiscation that commands resentment. Basically, others are sharing with me against my will: their problems, not their wealth. It occurs to me that this is the essence of socialism. One person’s problem is everyone’s problem. Your problems are mine, mine are yours. Embracing this concept precedes the theft necessary to “tidy things up,” to make things fair, to treat another’s problems. I wonder now if that should be the focus of property rights advocates, the denial of this concept, or, “your problems are yours, not mine.” After all, private property is secure once this problem sharing paradigm is rejected. Sharing problems with others that want no part of it is like giving someone tuberculosis or a venereal disease. I think this is a perfect analogy and therefore, I will henceforth refer to socialism as “gonorrhea socialism,” as this loaded phrase inevitably leads one to the faulty premise. [...]
Pingback by dustbury.com » Marx, Lenin, and herpes — December 15, 2011 @ 3:02 am