Violent criminals and statists (including socialists) are cut from the same cloth

published Aug 18, 2009, last modified Jun 26, 2013

The only difference lies in whether they prefer to execute the violence, or delegate it.

It should go without saying that in serving his own life, each and every individual is morally obliged to respect the right of others to be free from any initiation of physical force on his part. This is implicit in the right of each to be free from the initiation of physical force by the whole rest of the world. In exercising his own rights, therefore, the individual is not to violate the essential right of anyone else to be free from the initiation of physical force by him. This means that insofar as any individual's exercise of his rights entails the cooperation of other people, their cooperation must be obtained voluntarily. An individual has no right to exercise any alleged right that would entail the initiation of physical force against others and thus the violation of their rights. There is no right to violate anyone else's rights.

-- The Real Right to Medical Care versus Socialized Medicine

Unfortunately, both outlaws and statists just don't care.  But at least outlaws aren't cowards about it -- statists (a variety of authoritarians that includes socialists) prefer to delegate this violence to their authority figures.  And they have this pesky tendency to "dress up" this cowardly advocacy for violence in nice sentiments -- the name of the game is to hide the violence.

If I want you to pay for my medicines, and you refuse, I could call you selfish.  And that's okay -- maybe you are being selfish, maybe not.  But if I then  proceed to use violence, or to delegate the use of violence or threats in someone else's hands, against my will, just so I can get my medicines at your expense, I am being undeniably evil.  Yet this is exactly what socialists (and all manner of statists) do -- they implement their plans by making up rules ("laws") and then having people with guns punish those who refuse to obey them.  It's no different from me creating a rule that states "robbery is wrong", then subsequently creating an exception to the rule for the things that I want for me.

However, they know that, if they stated their plans in these plain terms, they would be relegated to insane houses.  Therefore, they deceitfullly reframe the issue in feel-good terms: "socialism", "free medical care", "generosity", "solidarity", "the common good", "paying your dues to society", "sharing", et cetera.  They want you to focus in the "benefits" of their plans, to get you to forget the fact that ultimately, their plans won't work without theft against everyone and violence against unwilling people.  Whether they themselves believe this nonsense, or they are acting duplicitously, they are intentionally deceiving you with propaganda; their terminology of "generosity" just doesn't apply, because generosity is only generosity if it is voluntary, not forced.  Under the circumstances, listening to them say that nonstatists are "selfish" or "don't want to share" is, to say the least, laughably preposterous.  It's like listening to a criminal baffled that people won't collaborate  willingly when he commits a crime.

Socialism sounds nice, but since it requires violence or threats toward the person, it is absolutely wrong.