The April 27 News-Times brought an interesting reply to my comments on the growing threat of Socialist attitudes in our nation. I reread Frank Lariscey's letter, "Writer's criticism of Social Security may inadvertently boost socialism," to discover how my opposition to socialism actually may boost socialism.
I regret that I must have missed something, because all I could see were the standard trite phrases, and personal attacks that invoke the hackneyed '60s charge of "capitalist." But then I remembered there were a group of people in the 1970s and 1980s who said that confrontation of the Soviet Union would actually promote the destruction of our nation and the victory of the Soviet Empire. If necessary, I can let the writer know how that one turned out.
Regardless of the attacks, I noted that the writer never took issue with the central theme of my previous letter which is that Social Security (socialism) is failing. The only real chance of success is to draw off other successful programs, which rely on increased individual freedom.
Lariscey's letter gives a perfect example of how supporters of the "big government" protectionism respond to any attempt to question their activities. It seems that if the government allows me to keep "my money" in the form of a tax deduction, I should thankfully grovel at their feet since I am now an agent of the federal government. ...
The other tactic the letter shows is how we take totally unrelated subjects and through situational logic tie them together. Yes, I agree that roadways, public safety and what-not are necessary activities of a central government. But in each of those there is some responsibility inherent in their use. If you misuse the privilege of the highway they take your license; if you abuse the public safety system (either by setting fires or committing crimes) there is a level of responsibility and consequence inherent in the system.
Big-government Socialist programs have only one response to an abuse of the program: to increase funding. And since government does not produce any wealth, their only solution a reduction in available funds they either punish producers (raise taxes) or the recipients (reduce benefits). Each of these solutions results in a loss to all people.
Our apparent differences of opinion may come from how we view people. The Socialist views people as they are, and viewed in that sense you must protect them for they are frail and have failings. I, on the other hand, view people in their God-given potential to exceed even their wildest dreams. I believe if we allow them more freedom to the benefits of their labor (right to their property) that they will be encouraged to continue to excel.
As Goethe said, "When we treat man as he is, we make him worse than he is; when we treat him as if he already were what he potentially could be, we make him what he should be."
The Columbia County News-Times ©2013. All Rights Reserved.