Communism Has Always Led To Mass Murder Of The Communist Nation's Own Citizens


"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more[1]" - Michelle Obama

All over the country and all day every day I'm reading online about political and economic theories.  The human mind is forever a vicious battle of emotion vs logic, and most often people are speaking out of some emotion rather than logic when they're crying about how they "deserve" more of this, or more of that.  I understand this.  I understand it well.  Thing about it all is, there is no objective way to determine that person A deserves X amount of wealth for Y amount of labor done.  All there ever is is an agreement between worker and employer.

People rail against capitalism, some claim capitalism is evil[2]. Others claim socialism is evil[3]. I'm here to tell you those persons are fools, as only a moral agent can be either good or evil, or rather, only an independent moral agent's actions can be either good or evil. We can observe some things about socialism and capitalism, and how those economic systems affect the citizens under them.  It's plain that as the USA has increased its level of socialism, it's become increasingly less wealthy.  As China has increased its level of capitalism, it has become increasingly more wealthy[4].  Communism has always been an economic and social disaster[5].

Stop thinking government is supposed to take care of you - government produces nothing

Happiness and Waste

A nation's wealth comes from production

The citizens of the USA used to pride themselves on self reliance.  This isn't the case any more, as the years of obscene wealth in the USA seemed to turn a lot of the population soft.  Oh it seemed the unions were good things.  It seemed they protected the workers; but they also, after the years went on,  made it too hard to fire poor workers; and the unions never stopped demanding more and more income for their members Unions priced American workers out of the manufacturing jobs we used to have here[6].

Oh at one time unions seemed to have saved American workers lives, forced a "trickle up" sort of economy in effect by forcing decent wages.  Power tends to corrupt, however, and unions gained too much power in the USA; and now manufacturing is gone to China and brought the Chinese a growing middle class[7]. It's plain that capitalism provides the greater avenues for a population to become wealthy whereas socialism is more something a population embraces for having lost industry and the wealth production brings.  Capitalism in China is a massive success.  Strangely, some people still call the country a communist one, but that isn't true at all[8]

Socialism And The Sharing Of Miseries


While there is no doubt wealth disparity has increased in the USA over recent years I personally only see people complaining about it online out of what can only be called jealousy, or envy.  I don't think many of these people who look at the riches of the top one percent realize that were America to become totally socialist, they'd be getting even less of the pie.  Socialism is a very sound theory in the moral sense except there is no objective way to say who deserves how much of whatever wealth there is available. There is nothing factual or proven which can point out how job A being done deserves pay X in wages.

I personally hear people saying that investing is evil, that it is immoral to get wealth from anything but labor.  By that same token people say that being a landlord is evil, which seems to imply that the person expressing the belief believes he himself has no right to do what he will with his property; or that it is just somehow immoral to take money from another person for the use of a homestead.  If taking income from investments, whether they be rental properties or stocks is immoral, then the person expressing such beliefs must also believe that the elderly should have to work and pay their own way regardless of their condition.  You can't ever retire if you're not getting income from some sort of investment unless someone else is simply paying your way; and that is the same thing, is it not?  If you're not paying your way through labor then you're more a taker than a giver, correct?  Maybe we just can't all agree on what "labor" actually means?

I've got a friend who I grew up with who lived for many years on as little as he possibly could because he was obsessed with saving money.  He kept good jobs, and he lived very poor, and he saved a lot of money.  He began to buy houses and apartments to rent out to people.  His goal, of course, is to retire in his 40's, and he's almost to that goal now at the age of 41.  I went with my friend to a rental property to do some very minor repairs in the home.  The renters have two vehicles which look fabulous, both far more expensive than what they landlord, my friend, is driving.  They had a 60" plasma screen television in the house, and two rooms in there they weren't using at all.  They still regard my friend as some sort of parasite and they're always late with the rent.  Those people probably think they're being oppressed; and all my friend did was give them a place to live - the renters in that house are terrible.  They can't see themselves for anything.  They're the irresponsible persons.  They're poor because they are foolish.  This is often the case.

There is absolutely nothing evil about investing your money wisely, and doing so towards the goal of retiring early and spending your life as you wish.  What I see very often is a population of greedy envious people who want what they want when they want it, and when they spend poorly and are not wise, lose their home or their job and then their home for over spending; they blame someone else, and cry out for socialism.  So often people run up debts foolishly instead of living frugally, and then when things go badly for them they cry about the "evil" persons who they believe are oppressing them.  In all actuality, it's people behaving poorly, and expressing their actual values through attempting to have fancy things they can't afford is just that, foolishness.

It is foolishness to attempt to live beyond your means.  It is virtuous to live below your means.  It's simply evil to foolishly attempt to live beyond your means and then blame someone who has lived below their means for problems you have created for yourself all by yourself.

If You Live For Instant Gratification - You Need To Own Your Poverty

Instant Gratification

Instant Gratification And Usury

The consumer culture in the USA is an instant gratification culture, and that is a culture of foolishness and perpetual debt.  You wind up being a bitter person late on rent and angry at the wiser person who gave you a place to live when you live beyond your means. The average US household credit card debt is over seven thousand dollars[9]; but when looking at indebted households, the credit card debt average more than doubles to over fifteen thousand dollars. The US average mortgage debt is over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and the average student loan debt is over thirty thousand dollars.  All of this spending stimulates the economy, creates jobs, and continues to increase spending and the entire cycle; but where does this debt go?  It goes, in short, to wherever the lender was, obviously.

So why do people look at lenders as evil?  Are the borrowers not the very persons who create lenders? Is it immoral to help someone else out while also helping yourself out?  I do not think so.  I know that if I need a vehicle to get to a job, and you loan me the money to get one so I can then have a job, that you've done me a service, and if you want something in return for that, then I can either agree to the deal, or not on my own volition.  Now if you were to know I would starve to death or have something else terrible happen for your not loaning me what I need; well, that could be something you have to deal with on your own.  We are independent moral agents. A man with a car, a job, and a debt for the car is better off than the man without a car and a job, and who is starving. By the same token, the man or woman who rents you a place to live for a long time or a short time has done you a favor.  No individual OWES YOU a place to live for your simply being alive.  People are denied a place to rent to live in pretty frequently; and while that may or may not be "moral," or "immoral," it is certainly the prerogative of the property owner to either agree or disagree to the providing of a living space to someone for rent. I'd rather you just loan me the money and rent me the apartment, please and thank you.  Usury isn't evil.

Redistribution Of Wealth Is Theft

Redistribution Is Theft

Wealth Redistribution?

If something is taken from you by force we call this theft.  How is it different when government takes things by force?  We just call this "taxes," but it is the same thing, of course, the same theft.  Have you seen the social contract?  Did you sign it?  I've neither seen it or signed it.  We can agree a social contract exists, however, but we can't agree to just what it is.

Let's play this safely.  There are around 330 million persons in the United States of America.  I'm willing to bet there are 330 million different definitions of what this social contract thing is too.  The global elite see wealth redistribution towards the top as serving the greater good.  The poor see redistribution of wealth towards the bottom as towards the greater good.  Who is right, who is wrong?  Well, my friends, economics is never anything more than an expression of human values.  If you say you hate big oil yet you drive an SUV and have a few ATVs and a sports car, you really LOVE corporations like Halliburton, and you simply aren't putting your money where your mouth is.  If you say you hate the thousand crimes of Monsanto, and yet you are too lazy to explore alternative herbicides, or pull your weeds, and you continually purchase Roundup herbicide, the facts are you actually LOVE Monsanto, and approve of their activities by virtue of your voting for them with your dollars. Your votes are the most meaningless things on the planet.  When you purchase a thing or decline to purchase a thing you are using your free moral agency to express your values.  Do it wisely.

The Declaration of Independence states that,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator to certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[10]"

Nowhere in that does it say we believe everyone is worth the same pay, or that anyone is entitled to someone else's money.  Again, if you do not like Apple's profiteering in China, then you either don't buy Apple products, or you are a hypocrite.  If you purchase Apple products, you have voted for Apple, and you endorse them, and all their wages or relationships with consumers.  If you do not approve of such, you don't purchase Apple products.  If you think government is supposed to get involved and take something from Apple to give to someone else, and you are using Apple products, then you are one dandy little hypocrite, and your word can't be construed as anything but self righteous doublespeak as your consumer values show clearly before the creator and all your endorsement of Apple.  That is how it goes.  There are only votes with dollars, and economics is an expression of each human's values.  If you expect government to take from one and give to another whether it be from the poor to the rich, or the opposite direction, then you are saying that you have no part in this, or that you are powerless.  You are not.  Get involved, you live here too; let your yes be yes and your no be no.