Ebenezer Scrooge vs. the Socialist Regime

The other day, I found a blog written by someone who appeared to be on the other side of many issues. I figured I would see what the other side was talking about, to strengthen my own stances, and possibly even have some friendly political discourse. One of the blog entries I found nagged me so badly, that it has been stuck in my brain for days! Naturally, I had to write about it.

The entry details a conversation between a mother and son. The son is learning about other countries during the course of his homeschooling. Upon learning about Russia's history, he begins to ask his mother a series of questions. The conversation goes as follows (from Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez - "Burma, Bolsheviks, and Alexander"):

"Mom," he said. "Why are there some people who let all the other people go hungry?"

"I don't know," said I.

"Are they evil?"

"I don't know. I think they're greedy."

Alex's eyes welled with tears. "Sad," he said.

"Yes."

"But sometimes, the poor people decide not to let he greedy people keep them poor anymore," he offered. "That's not sad."

"True," said I.

"Is George Bush greedy?" he asked.

"Yes," I said.

"Is he evil too?"

"Some people might say so, yes."

"Why don't we have Bolsheviks here?" he asked.

I don't know what bugged me the most about it. When I read it, it jumped out at me that the boy was advocating the forced transfer of wealth. The mother was perfectly alright with this. She bragged, as would any parent, about how bright her child was. I commend her decision to home-school her child, but are the building blocks of socialism a good foundation for a child's view of how the world works?

The exchange seemed to suggest to me that mother and child believe that all members of a society are financially responsible for the well-being of all members of that society. A mark of guilt is placed on those who "let all the other people go hungry." Why is one segment of the society responsible for what happens to the other segment? I don't believe that people should go hungry; that wouldn't be to anyone's benefit. My issue is the notion that you can force someone to do what you think is for the "greater good."

Charity and good-will must spring from the hearts of individuals, not from the force of an overbearing government. Coercive force cannot change the hearts of people. You can help feed the poor if you wish, but you shouldn't have to do so with a gun to the back of your head, so to speak. Socialism demands an expansion of that sort of welfare state, in which some lofty few decide what they think is "right," and use the force of their state to compel others to serve those ends. It is absolutely immoral to take the fruits of one man's labor away so that they may be given to another.

I know that different people have different skills, and some people spend more time, money, and effort developing them. That's why a brain surgeon with years of schooling ought to earn more pay than a stock boy with a week of on-the-job training. Socialism seeks to level out and average the things that naturally divide a society. The socialist believes that the brain surgeon should use his earnings to help subsidize the livelihood of the stock boy. When you seek to equalize such a society by force, you take away the incentive for achievement and excellence. If the stock boy isn't forced to fund yet another person's wellbeing, does that mean he possesses more freedom than the brain surgeon? Why should the brain surgeon have made the effort to become a master of his craft if he must split the difference with someone who hasn't worked as hard? A socialist society doesn't care about what an individual does to better himself--it only cares about what that individual can provide for the well-being of all members of the society. A free society knows that people are gifted or trained in different ways and seeks to reward them.

In short, I'm not as wealthy as I'd like to be, but I can't blame the wealthy man up the road, nor can I make him share. I don't have the moral authority to make him use his own money to feed anyone that is starving. He can be asked to contribute, but he shouldn't be coerced by the state, through his taxes, or any other means. Government can't threaten Ebenezer Scrooge into being a charitable person--it takes a change of heart.