When Sharing is Stealing
by Reginald Welkin
We all have probably seen those types of people that “borrow” things with no intention of returning them. Borrowing implies three things: 1) There is express or implied permission for the item's use. 2) The item will be used for a limited time. 3) The item will be returned to the owner after use. Any deviation from these three ideas means that another more appropriate term should be used, like commandeering, stealing, accepting as a gift, etc. The reason for using an inappropriate word is to either obscure the facts or make light of doing something wrong.
Socialism and Communism (from here on out we'll call them Red) both have the view that people with, must share with those without. The thing is, they don't just want those that believe and join this system to be a part of it, but they want everyone to be a part of it, often including those in completely other countries. Why? Because bigger is always assumed to be better where property is owned by society.
Why is this? First off, let's look at how those that espouse the Reds' view of Sharing believe. You aren't likely to see very many selfless people in this group. Those at the top are often much more wealthy than those at the bottom, while saying that they are helping those at the bottom gain wealth from those at the top...which are usually their political enemies. Those at the bottom, aren't interested in sharing with each other, they just want everyone to “share” with them.
How has the word “share” been changed? As with borrow, share implies three things, assuming lack of joint ownership: 1) That the owner chooses to share without force or coercion. 2) That the receiver wants what the owner is sharing. 3) That no payment occurs to the owner. The term share interestingly begins to be torn down by those raising children. They make their children “share” their toys. Often it will be the weaker/younger child that will want what the other is playing with. They will throw a tantrum and the caregiver will order the other child to “share”. If the other child refuses, then the caregiver will often forcefully remove that toy and give it to the other to play with. Neither child really learns to share. One learns to act out to get their way while the other learns to use reverse psychology and other devious means to get their way.
Red societies recognize that there are certain things that can't really be owned by individuals. Sure, someone could start bottling up water or air, until theoretically, there wasn't any for anyone else. The problem is that theory isn't reality. If someone started hoarding water or air, others would do the same, and it would become impossible to own it all. Maybe we face that type of reality in the future, but currently that nightmare isn't really feasible. These two are shared resources that are used and reused since time began. People can have temporary ownership, but nobody can have universal, total, and permanent ownership of these resources.
The problem is that Reds like to extend these shared resources into almost, if not everything. Knowledge, wealth, and health all come under their assumed purview. They want to control means and production. They want universal healthcare, supported be everyone, or at least those with means, except those in political power, who don't really pay for it. Here they face a bit of a problem.
Let's call this problem The Redistribution Conundrum. If you force those that are successful to share with those that aren't, two things cause a third. 1) Successful people will lose the drive to push harder, because the more they work, the more is taken from them...or they will find ways to hide or abscond with their real earnings...or they will convince others that they really don't want what they have. 2) Those that aren't successful, will become really successful at getting things from others without actually adding to the “shared” basket of wealth. 3) The general basket of shared wealth will begin to shrink.
If the shared basket is shrinking, then it must be missing something, they think. They look around, and see nearby countries that are prosperous. Obviously, according to them, the other country either has a resource that they need or the other country is acting unfairly and has actually stolen a shared resource that needs to be shared. This causes these countries to seek to expand either through military or political means. Just like the little child that sees another kid playing with a toy he didn't want, now, upon seeing how much fun the other child is having with it, he takes it away. And after taking from the other child, he continues to take. It is only, when he has all, that he is happy, even when the other child is happily playing with rocks, or his own hands. As with a black hole, the Red's needs can never be filled. True Reds can never get enough, and aren't ever really content unless they are in the upper echelons of an expanding Red government.
I once heard someone argue for completely doing away with private paid and insured healthcare and going to publicly funded healthcare. She railed on how insurance companies really didn't have a purpose. They never really paid for things when needed and they absorbed much of the money that people paid them into their owners' and employees' pockets. She then went on to describe how much more she was having to pay for insurance, even though she never used her health insurance. When I interjected that she was having to pay more because she was paying for the healthcare of others, she replied that she would rather be the beneficiary of the best of both worlds. She wanted the government to pay for everything she needed while keeping all her earnings to spend on what she wanted. She obviously would only be happy in a leadership position in a Red government.
Another Red was arguing about how government programs had to exist to feed the poor or they would all starve. I asked him why it wouldn't be more appropriate to give people the option to donate to the poor themselves, rather than paying someone a hefty salary to give to the poor as well as the parasites, since there was no reason for them to differentiate. His reply was that people just don't give enough. Instead of asking him how much he gave, as I probably should have, I asked him what happened before the government decided to intervene on a grand scale. In the US, large government programs weren't really in place until Franklin D. Roosevelt. People had to work, or rely on others for their daily food, but they didn't use force to redistribute wealth, that was called theft. In a Red country, theft is virtue. Changing definitions doesn't change the truth.
Writes about politics from a Conservative Libertarian viewpoint. While pushing for a government that is Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal, he personally appreciates the Socially Conservative lifestyle.
Copyright R. A. Welkin