Introduction and “The Pull” (1)


(Part of a series: The Problems Associated with a Collectivistic Society)

Any one of the world’s societies- which come from a vastly diverse palette- from those as suffocating as communist North Korea, to those whose government only have their thumb lightly placed on their country’s jugular as the socialist programs that pervade capitalist America, share a common characteristic: collectivism. No country or society is completely free from it, even though the amount of collectivism that is allowed to diffuse into each government is vastly different according to each time and place. Yes, no society is free from it, so a socialist takeover is imminent in every society. The line between complete freedom and complete takeover exists; it is simply up the each society or country to determine where the line should be moved-in which direction, and how far.

The first problem associated with a collectivistic society: it’s enticing.

In terms of moving the line closer to communism, no level-headed person could truly want a communistic government (unless of course, they are the ruler of it). But the things that entice voters to collectivism, free education, free healthcare, a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, all require moving the line closer to a complete government takeover. Few realize this, and after hearing “I will make education free” in a Sanders speech, have vowed to vote for him and his collectivistic ways-no matter what the cost. When taxes increase to 60%, yes education will be free, but how much money are you truly saving? You have less money to begin with, because the government has taken a majority of it. Because the allure is strong, few realize the perniciousness of collectivism and thusly, the demographic of its voters tend to be economically ignorant and inferior.

Of course free education sounds enticing to students. Of course free healthcare sounds enticing to citizens. But what is free, really? Any free good or service comes at a loss to at least one party involved. When one notices a free sign at a store, they don’t think twice about it, because the store is at a loss. They paid for the item from their supplier, and in giving it to customers without a charge, they lose money. It’s very simple. Free education doesn’t mean that teachers will teach for free. Free healthcare doesn’t mean that doctors will work for free. It means that someone will be at a loss. And socialists are willing to put the US economy at a loss if it means that they can get free education in return. In transferring the burden of paying for college and healthcare from individuals to society, we all become responsible for the problems of individuals. When a consumer expends capital, he usually gets (and wants) some kind of physical good or service from it. When citizens’ tax rates go through the roof to fund college student’s education, what do they get in return? Free college is not free. It comes simply from shifting responsibilities that should be on individuals, to society- something that is simply not their responsibility.

Socialist politicians think they are doing good things. Socialist voters think that they advocating for positive change. But under collectivism, many good citizens are negatively affected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s