Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Complex Ethical Positions of Socialists

Recently. we heard Seattle Socialist City Council member Kshama Sawant proclaim that she was for non-violent advocacy and protest for a higher minimum wage.

Of course, a minimum wage itself is not non-violent. It is a vicious use of government to employ  force to prevent some peaceful transactions to be conducted between businesses and those seeking work.

Now, we have this from Bernie Sanders, who has just announced he is running to become the Democratic presidential nominee.  

But while Sander's is attempting to position himself as a fair and decent person with this claim, his advocacy of socialism puts him in a camp that is far from decent and calls for incredible coercion against individuals by the state.

Bottom line: Socialists love to pose as peaceful decent people, but they are advocates of massive coercion by government, and that should never be forgotten.

-RW

5 comments:

  1. The advocates of socialism are a strange breed. Regardless of the number of occasions that socialism has failed, in any number of varieties, its followers nevertheless continue to endorse its extremely misguided politico-economic and cultural foundations. One must come to the conclusion that their continued, almost religious, reverence for this failed model for social organization is emotion.

    It appears to largely be born out of economic illiteracy and often envy, giving it a religious zeal that is perhaps as dangerous as ISIS or any other extremist monotheistic or polytheistic religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only reason it hasn't worked in the past is because the wrong people were in charge... really.

      Delete
    2. "The only reason it hasn't worked in the past is because the wrong people were in charge... really."

      That is indeed the usual reply. It is most unfortunate but not particularly surprising.

      Delete
  2. It seems to me that all statists (at least in the USA) cannot emotionally grapple with the fact that their political beliefs are based upon the initiation of force and violence against non-aggressive non-criminals. Likewise, they cannot emotionally grapple with the simple and well known concept which is the non-aggression principle within which non-criminals in the USA nevertheless live and work daily. Finally, they cannot grapple with the necessity of first showing a failure in the NAP to justify in the first instance the violence [that they do not want to admit to] that they are proposing with their political beliefs.

    Our opponents just can't think straight. Or at all. It's creepy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Our opponents just can't think straight. Or at all. It's creepy."

      The troubling thing for me is the sheer number/% of them...I really don't know how Rothbard/Block/Paul/Raimondo/Rockwell and the rest kept their heads up when they were statistically insignificant.

      Amazing inner personal strength.

      Delete