Socialism is War Against Community

When things become socialized, other people start telling you how to live. The justification is often, “We’re paying for such-and-such, therefore we get to determine how it is provided.”

Often, a very similar argument is used in favor of socialization in the first place: “The consequences of not providing such-and-such now, will cost us twice as much in the future.” An example would be, as my friend Shawn likes to argue,

If we don’t provide a base level of care for people who can’t or won’t provide their own, we’ll end up paying even more once those minor injuries turn gangrenous and limbs have to be amputated, etc.

Facially, it sounds accurate, and this is why most people have a hard time with such arguments: they can’t cut through the bullshit.

First, the argument poisons the well, with the presumption that, because I’m against State-sponsored health care for the poor, I am invariably against all health care for the poor. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is an entirely wrong argument in the first place. The argument simply assumes without question, that everyone else should and will pay for other people’s problems.

Nobody ever challenges, “Why are we forced to pay for other people’s problems at all?”

As we inch towards Health Care socialism, there are a number of areas where this might become evident. I predict that as the market for health care solutions becomes increasingly socialized, and if the Government ultimately implements the “single payer” model, in addition to those necessary economic consequences (i.e., shortages, quality declines, etc.) we will also suffer higher taxes. Certain foods will almost definitely be taxed more than others, taxes on beers, wines, and liquors will likely increase.

Taxes on tobacco products will skyrocket, and there will be a large portion of people subscribing to the “We’re paying for it, therefore we determine what’s covered” belief who will push for outright prohibition. And it is hard to argue, because it’s so simply appealing. If I have to pay for your health insurance, you better believe I’ll do everything within my power to make sure you never touch a cigarette. (Stricly speaking in the first-person hypothetical: I’m still not voting.)

The same consequences play out if we substitute just about anything for “tobacco products”, above. If the government decides to socialize the provision of food, different interest groups will struggle for control of what food is going to be produced, and in what quantities. Or, what food is going to be covered by the program and in what quantities and available to whom and when.

Those on the losing end will complain about a loss of freedom. Pot, meet kettle. You’d be right, of course, except your freedom became conditional when you infringed on my freedom, by forcing me to pay for your medicine. You’re the prime beneficiary of the State’s gun, pointed at me, forcing me to provide you with something for nothing. All I’m doing is trying to control how much of my money is taken, and how it is thereafter spent.

Thus socialism supplants true community, embodied previously by charity and neighborliness. It does not foster community, it destroys community. War between individuals is instigated by the politics of socialization. And it is essentially the Hobbesian war, of “All against all,” the very condition from which the State claims to shield us all. It is waged with ballots and the casualties are personal freedoms and independence, but it is nonetheless war.

Members of a community ought to revile any institution that would encourage war amongst themselves. They ought to chastise anyone who champions these causes as a liar, a thief, a usurper. They ought to see these tactics as a weapon against community. Smoking and Trans-fats are always healthier than fascism.

Government is the cause of the health care crisis, it’s time to start looking elsewhere for solutions.