What is a Socialist? – the definitive answer
Many people attempt to attribute such complicated characteristics to socialists that, should you subscribe to such a definition, nobody would ever be one.
A good example: “Socialism means that you believe that the government should own the means of production. Since President Obama has not said that, then he can’t be a socialist.”
Really? Forget, for the moment, that the government, with O at the helm, has taken over General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie-Mae, and Freddie-Mac, and has revealed no plan for re-privatizing them. Remember, instead, that, while the path of socialism never begins with public ownership of all business, it always ends with that. To better understand that, you should read the landmark essay by the Nobel laureate in economics, Friedrich von Hayek, called The Road to Serfdom. The Readers’ Digest Condensed version in pdf format is ubiquitous on the internet, so I believe that there is no harm in reprinting it here. You will find below a link to the complete text version as well as a link to the cartoon version published by Look Magazine in the 1940s. The link will open in a new window so that you will not lose your place here.
Here are links to The Road to Serfdom:
<a href=”http://avenue411.com/files/Hayek-Road-to-Serfdom–condensed.pdf”>PDF version</a>
<a href=”http://avenue411.com/files/Hayek-Road-to-Serfdom–condensed.pdf”>Cartoon version</a>
What gives lie to such a definition is the simple and obvious fact that this country abounds with socialists, especially in Congress. So, let’s put this issue to rest once and for all, shall we, with a clear and concise definition of socialist.
Our country was based upon the notion that every person has certain inalienable rights, including (but not limited to) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the founders in their writings made it clear that the right to property was also of paramount importance. These rights come from God.
It is also the absolute right of every person to the fruits of his own labor as evidenced by his income and property, and it is not only immoral, but absolutely and unquestionably unconstitutional for the government to take money or property by force from one individual in order to give to another, no matter how great their need. Should government be involved in charity? We address that in our article, “What is Government’s Role in Charity?”, which you can read here.
A socialist is, then, one who believes that it is okay for the government to take your money and/or property, to which you have the exclusive natural right, and give it to someone who has no such right.
We should now be in agreement that the United States Congress does, indeed, abound with socialists.