Materialism and Socialism

    We often hear about how Capitalists are materialistic, but it is my intention to prove in this article that Socialism is, in fact, the ultimate materialistic ideology. Toward this end, let us first define Materialism:

(Taken from www.dictionary.com:)
    ma•te•ri•al•ism n.
    1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
    2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
    3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.
    For our purposes, we will concern ourselves with the second definition (#2 in bold). Also, there are many various incarnations of Capitalism, but for our purposes we shall understand “Capitalism” to mean laissez-faire Capitalism.

    First, let us examine the primary concerns of each ideology:

Laissez-faire:
    Primary concerns are individual freedom and the limitation of government power to interfere in private affairs. Government’s only role is to secure the peace and protect property rights. The initiation of force is prohibited to all parties, including government. Force is only legitimate in the defense of rights. The prohibition of the initiation of force and the preservation of individual rights is paramount, all other concerns are secondary.

Socialism:
    Primary concerns are the distribution of wealth and the material circumstances of “the people”. Coercive force of law is a legitimate means by which wealth and property can be “re-appropriated” (confiscated by threat of force) for the “good of the community”. Government (“community”) control of the means of production and “economic justice” (meaning the forced equal distribution of material wealth) are of primary importance. All other concerns (including individual freedom) are subordinate to these primary concerns.
    Now given this comparative break-down of these two ideologies, it is readily apparent to the writer (and hopefully the reader) that material wealth is given much more emphasis in Socialism than in Laissez-faire Capitalism. Material wealth is only one of countless possible pursuits within the Laissez-faire system. But the acquisition of wealth is not an objective of Laissez-faire, but rather the preservation of rights and the non-initiation of force.

    By contrast, Socialism’s primary function is to control the creation and distribution of wealth. Indeed in revolutionary Socialism it is even permissible (even encouraged) to take people’s lives through violent force who do now bow to the ideals of the forced confiscation of their property. Again, contrast this with Laissez-faire Capitalism’s prohibition of the initiation of force. Were Capitalism as materialistic as Socialism, it would condone the use of force and the taking of life in one’s pursuit for wealth. But it does the opposite. The concept of property rights alone prohibits one party from forcibly taking the property of another.

    It would appear that Socialism is a much better fit for the accepted definition of materialism.

    Let us further summarize what we have found here:
       Capitalism: Freedom through the absence of force.
       Socialism: Material equality by means of force.

    “Who you callin’ materialist?”

Do “We” have more rights than “I”?

    In this day and age it is worth asking the question, “from where does government derive its rightful authority?” Whatever answer is to be found to this question must serve as the limit to government power. After all, nobody – not even government (especially government) – should go beyond that which can be rightly claimed.

    To answer the question of the origin of government power, we must explore the origin of government itself. For the next bit, I will borrow heavily from Frederic Bastiat (see www.bastiat.org). Now let us transport ourselves back to the (strictly hypothetical) dawn of human civilization and witness the process of the emergence of government.

    Let us picture two farmers working away in their fields. On occasion, a thief will come by these farmer’s fields and will steal some of their grain. But these farmers are too busy farming and tending their crops to concern themselves with the defense of their property. So they both decide to band together and share in the expense of hiring a handful of men to watch over their farms for them to thwart future attempts at theft. Thus they have established the first police force.

    It is perfectly acceptable for these farmers to hire other men to use force to prevent thieves from stealing from them, because each farmer naturally and individually possesses the right to self-defense and the defense of their property. The hired men are only acting on behalf of the farmers’ own natural rights.

    But now let us imagine that the second farmer fails to plan ahead and finds himself without any seed to re-plant his crops. So the second farmer says to the hired men (police), “would you please take for me some seed from the first farmer as I have none?” This is the same sort of theft that these men were hired to prevent. But now they are being asked to commit it themselves.

    It is not acceptable for the second farmer to ask these men to take the other farmer’s property by force because it is not a natural right the farmer possesses, and therefore the hired men are not acting on behalf of any natural right. The farmer, working by proxy through the hired men, is one and the same as the thief he wanted to stop from stealing from his own field. If the farmer does not possess a right to take from another, neither do his hired proxies have such a right – even if (and especially if) the hired proxies are paid by both farmers.

    The farmers entered into a joint venture of mutual protection since it was more efficient and cost-effective than hiring guards separately. We see that this primeval government was conceived by the farmers for the sole purpose of protecting their persons and property from bandits. This is the purpose of government and the reason it was established in the first place. But this government can only rightly do things that its founders had a right to do individually before the government was founded. If it is wrong for the individual to do a thing, it must also be wrong for the group to do the same thing because the group is composed of individuals.

    Many today would have us believe that somehow groups enjoy more rights than individuals. That governments (which are nothing more than the modern analog to the hired men in the previous story) somehow enjoy more rights of power collectively than the individuals that comprise them. Governments are, after all, merely groups of individuals who have (more or less) mutually agreed to cooperate with one another for the common protection of their rights.

    But the question must be asked, in political matters, at what point does the whole become more than the sum of its parts? Put another way, at what point does a group association acquire rights and powers that the individuals comprising the group do not possess separately? If the individual cannot justly take something from another by force, how many individuals must associate together for it to become just? 10? 100? 1,000? While 10 men collectively possess more physical strength than 1, do they posses more humanity? Do they, merely by means of their association, attain to something higher than the individual human? Something super-human? These questions hopefully illustrate the absurdity of the notion that governments can do things that are normally considered unjust, immoral, and criminal for the individual. Earthly government does not act on behalf of a Supreme Being, but rather on behalf of the mere mortals that comprise it. So how can government claim super-human privilege? Bastiat explained this concept well in his book, The Law:

    If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. … If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law … is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
    Another scathingly clear indictment of our present generation’s view of government can be found in Bastiat’s Government:

    We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, "I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you … lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? … By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!"
    So the next time a politician is promoting one law or another, ask yourself, “do I personally possess the right to do what this law would have the government do on my behalf?”

Who Needs Property Rights?

    One of the most central issues to libertarians and most “conservatives” is that of Property Rights. That is, the right to own, use, and dispose of your property as you see fit. This is also probably one of the most violated rights in America. But who really needs property rights? Who benefits most from them?

    It is the argument of those on the socialist/big-government side of the aisle that property rights benefit the “rich” (whoever that is) and not the poor. But this could not be further from the truth. The poor, the struggling, and the “middle class” need property rights as much or more than the so-called “rich”. How is that, you ask?

    Property rights are more critical to the freedom of those with little property than those with a lot of property. If a wealthy person who owns many, many pieces of property has one of them taken away, or has the use of it limited, the rich person hasn’t lost a great deal of personal liberty. But if a poor person who owns very little has their rights of ownership violated, it could easily impact them severely.

    Small farms are one example of a middle-class to lower-income group to whom property rights are extremely crucial. Without protections on property rights, many struggling farmers will lose everything, and many already have.

    In America we enjoy a high degree of income mobility. That means that you can be very poor today, but be doing quite well tomorrow. This is an important feature of our economic system. And a vital component to this income mobility is property. Without sufficient rights to ownership and property, we would lack the springboard needed to engage this income mobility. Property and ownership is often a critical tool necessary to lift one’s self up from low income levels. Were property rights to be wholly denied, the poor would have little to no means of ever improving their situation themselves.

    In fact, there were times when women and blacks were not allowed to own property. It became a moral imperative to recognize these individual’s rights to property and ownership. Yet the same activist groups who would heartily agree that these instances were victories for civil rights are the same groups that want to infringe upon everyone’s property rights! Surely this would be a drastic step backwards. Indeed, even farther backwards than it once was. If it was so important for the disadvantaged to be able to own property back then, why is it not today?

    In addition to property rights and rights of ownership being critical to economic viability, property rights are also vitally important to personal liberty. Without property rights, the government can take what little you have, or render what you have unusable. If you are forced into a situation of living without ownership of anything, or worse, living on the government’s aid, there are many liberties you lose. For instance, living in government housing projects carries with it various and sundry limitations, restrictions, and regulations, some of which are much more burdensome than if you lived in a privately owned apartment.

    Speaking of apartments, let me draw upon another example of how property rights and rights of ownership are critical to personal liberty. There have been several cases in recent history where owners of apartments have been forced by the government to allow people to reside in their apartments who practice things that violate the owner’s principles. “But apartment complex owners are rich,” I hear you say. Despite the fact that, rich or poor, everyone has the same rights, these same government regulations apply to lower-income households who offer to rent a room out of their homes to try to make some extra income. Under these laws, people are forced to allow people of whom they disapprove live within their own homes! In some cases, the home owners have Christian beliefs and their religion prohibits them from aiding or abetting what the Bible refers to as sin. Thus, when an unmarried couple, or a homosexual couple want to rent their room, the home owner is forced by law to violate their religious beliefs – in their own home no less! This is a position in which nobody should be placed. The abridgement of property rights and rights of ownership in this case means that the home owners (or apartment owners for that matter) do not, in fact, have freedom of religion. Rich or poor, these kinds of violations of fundamental rights cannot be allowed. Even if you’re not religious you must ask yourself the question: where will it stop and where will it lead?

    With cases like these where one’s most fundamental rights are at stake, we see that rights of ownership and property are basic and essential human rights. But let us look at one more example.

    In the so-called “third world” where there is little rule of law and only rule of men, it is not in any way inconceivable that the ruler of one of these countries could seize one’s home, one’s land, one’s car, or anything for that matter, for his own purposes. Not only for his own purposes, but upon a completely arbitrary basis, and without due process or any need to give account for why it is being taken. If such a “third world” government wanted to take something you have, you have no alternative or recourse but to comply.

    Contrast this with how even the President of the United States legally could not arbitrarily decide to confiscate your home, your car, etc. If he really wanted to and had good and compelling reason, he would still have to give account for it and there would have to be due process. This is because in America we still have a modicum of property rights. But it is not where it should be as I’ve shown above.

    The underlying principle that must be understood is that if you are denied rights of ownership and property by the government, then essentially that property is ultimately owned (insofar as it is controlled) by the government, and you are only allowed to keep it, use it, and dispense with it at the pleasure of the government.

    As we have seen, property rights are an imperative not only to the wealthy, but also, and more importantly, to the “middle class” and to the poor. Without them, we cannot long be free. Nor can we command our own economic destiny without them.

Obi Wan Was Wrong – Don’t Use the Force!

    Socialists and so-called “Progressives” constantly tell us that their “plan” is kinder and gentler because it is a plan based upon giving to the poor. They attempt to contrast this with Capitalism which they claim is harsh and mean-spirited, especially to those in need. But are they correct in saying this? Have they thought it through? Let us examine precisely what a Capitalist “system” really is.

    First, Capitalism isn’t a “system” so much as it is the absence of a system. Capitalism is simply a naturally occurring form of economy that forms with the presence of a government that protects individual rights including the rights of property. The unstructured and free nature of Capitalism therefore disqualifies Capitalism from being considered an actual “system” in a true sense. Thus if we are discussing forms of government, then we shouldn’t actually be discussing Capitalism as it is little more than a naturally occurring phenomena. Instead, we should be discussing the form of government that allows truly free Capitalism to exist: limited government.

    So now let us compare limited government with socialistic government. First, it is important to realize that within limited government not only can Capitalism exist, but a host of other kinds of economy. Indeed, given the limited nature of a limited government and its hands-off approach to individual freedom, individuals are free to pursue whatever sort of economy they desire. Unionized factories? No problem! Communes? We can do that. In fact, any kind of voluntary system you can imagine can be had alongside Capitalism in a free, limited system of government. The key term here is “voluntary”.

    So why can’t we have Socialism alongside Capitalism? We can have voluntary redistribution of wealth to the poor in a free system. What we cannot have in a free system is involuntary, forced or coerced “giving” (otherwise known as “taking”). Giving is a voluntary act. Therefore nothing can be considered as giving to the poor if it is forcibly confiscated. Forced confiscation is known as taking – not giving.

    Thus we see that Socialism is not merely a system whereby people give to the poor. It is a system of force and coercion whereby people must either render to the State what it demands or be punished. Contrast this with the free and voluntary benevolence that is possible under limited government and alongside Capitalism. The presence of Capitalism does not coercively force anyone to conduct their affairs in any particular way. This leaves each person free to pursue their own views of how they want to live their lives. In such a free system, nobody is allowed to coercively force someone else to accept their views. But Socialism leaves no option but Socialism. Worse, if you attempt to choose something other than Socialism (by refusing to participate) you will be punished by force of law, meaning that one specific view (that of Socialism) is forced upon all. No one is free to act upon an opposite view. So we see that Socialism is hostile to freedom of choice and freedom to act on one’s own views.

    Now let us briefly examine the nature of government. This will be a very short examination since government is nothing more than force. Some will tell you that government is many things, but the truth is that when you boil any act of government down to its root you will always find force. Force is the only means by which government can obtain your cooperation. If government fines you for speeding, they can more or less depend on you to pay the fine because they know you are aware that if you do not pay the fine you will feel the iron fist of government. So we see that even more passive methods of enforcement, such as fines, still have their basis in the use of force.

    Socialism must operate through government and government is nothing more than force. Therefore, Socialism is a specific application of coercive force. But isn’t Socialism supposed to be about charity? This is a good time to hear from Frederic Bastiat, a French economist who lived through the brutal French Revolution:

    "There are three regions in which mankind can dwell: a lower, that of plunder; a higher, that of charity; and an intermediate, that of justice. Governments perform only actions having force as their sanction. Now, it is permitted to force someone to be just, but not to force him to be charitable. Law, when it would do by force what ethics does by persuasion, far from rising to the region of charity, falls into the domain of plunder. The proper domain of law and governments is justice."

    While charity cannot be forced without it becoming plunder, we can freely choose charity within a system of limited government and even as part of a Capitalist society. We can be as generous and as benevolent as our hearts desire and nobody can forcibly keep us from these goals. The one and only thing we cannot do under such a system is to use coercive force to press our views and ways upon others. This is the primary point of distinction between a free system and Socialism.

    We must then conclude that the aims of Socialism – namely the provision for the poor, common ownership, etc – can all still be achieved alongside, or even through Capitalism. The only missing component is that of coercive force. And I hope we can all agree that we need as little coercive force in our lives as possible. Let us all be free to live our lives as we see fit. Let us not have people forcing their views upon others. Let us have limited government! And let the socialist realize that his “plan” is neither kind nor gentle.