Dear Friends,
It seems to me, socialism is premised on the notion, that the State can order our lives better than we ourselves can. Which is then predicated on the idea that we are not competent to run our own lives without the State’s help. Therefore, anyone who takes this stance will have to admit, to be consistent, that they consider themselves to be incompetent to run their own lives, without the State’s beneficence. Because to judge another is to show arrogance, and hubris, while the only person we truly know is ourselves. Everyone else being a mental construct of who we think they are. So, those who actually believe he or she is unfit to run their own lives, such that they feel the need to submit to a greater authority, like the state, probably shouldn’t run the lives of everyone else.
Socialism is advertised as the means to end inequality of outcome. If there is a need to solve inequality of outcome, there must then be inequality of outcome, else why have a political and economic system dedicated to solving it? If there is inequality of outcome, it must be because some are less skilled at competing in the free market, meritocracy, than others. Then, to make outcomes equal, those with greater merit must be enslaved to benefit those that are unfit. Only that way can equality of outcome be achieved. Those that are capable would not seek their own enslavement, only those who would receive the beneficence of enslaving the fit, the unfit, would seek such a system. So only those who think themselves unfit would seek it.
You could say that people who seek socialism then are people who are unfit to compete in a meritocracy. To say that you yourself believe in socialism, is to admit that you consider yourself unfit to compete in a meritocracy, a free market. Those who believe in their hearts, they cannot compete in a free market, a meritocracy, without the help of a government benefactor, always believe themselves sufficient to run the lives of everyone else. Seems a strange dichotomy, to believe oneself unfit to run one’s own life, but fit to run the lives of everyone else. Yet that is the logic of socialism. Those who seek it must consider themselves, for whatever reason, consciously or unconsciously, unfit to compete in a meritocracy, so seek a system where merit is a yoke, not an advantage.
Some might use sophistry and argue they are fit yet also magnanimous. Yet even a cursory glance at their finances always show little or no charitable giving, while those who espouse meritocracy give much more of their income, so magnanimity cannot be a solution. Unless they believe they will be the political elite, that will take, by force, the fruits of the labor of some and hand out that largess of human kind to the poor… and sleep in beds, because after all, some animals are more equal than others. The only person I have ever seen take a lump and walked away… is someone who fiercely believes in the free market. When someone then claims they are socialists, out of fairness or magnanimity, they are lying to you and maybe themselves, because they don’t demonstrate magnanimity.
A society where those who are fit, are enslaved to those who are unfit, is one that is destined to poverty, famine and disintegration. For a short time it benefits those who are unfit and sometimes even the poor, but sooner or later, the enslaved must chafe at their bonds and slacken the pace. Some will even stop pulling altogether and hop in the cart. Heck, some will drag their feet, as a means of nihilistic revenge for having pulled it. As the pace slackens, and the number of people pulling drops, the cart will slow to a stop. Once it stops, it is stopped, and only if everyone jumps out and helps, will it begin moving again. That is why so few, actually no civilizations, that were once great have risen again. No one is willing to get out and push. So, it is better not to let those unfit yoke those who are fit, in the first place.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
