In This House We Believe:
The News is Corrupt
The Government is Too Big
Politicians Lie
Socialism is the Gospel of Envy
Fiat Currency is Fraud
And Ayn Rand was Right.
Socialism is the idea that a society benefits from an equal distribution of resources. A classless society is seen as good. Socialism seeks to combine economic and political efforts such that the society controls the means of production while disallowing private ownership. Socialism prizes the collective over the individual. Socialists believe that cooperation provides better outcomes than individual desires. The ideology of socialism depends on some wise group to make decisions for the collective. Individuals aren’t allowed choices or freedoms. All work for the better of the collective good as defined by some group of elites.
There don’t seem to be many successful or sustainable efforts at socialism in human history. Who will work when the fruits of their labors won’t belong to them but will be distributed to others? Who will aspire to aim higher when they will not derive the benefits of their brilliance? Creativity and innovation aren’t inspired. The opposite stagnation and deterioration surface. Whatever work is undertaken is done in the spirit of “who cares?” Those that care or dare get nowhere. They quickly learn to pull back.
A society rarely starts by trying socialism. The idea is typically promoted to “fix” the inequality in an existing society. Socialism makes attractive promises to those that are at the bottom of a society’s hierarchy. It is the weak that like the message of benefiting from redistribution of a society’s resources. However, those resources must exist, they must somehow have been created by somebody somewhere before they can be claimed for redistribution.
The collapse of Venezuela over just ten years is the current case study in the perils of socialism. Despite having the largest known oil reserves, Venezuela’s economy lies in tatters. Per person GDP dropped by 75% from 2014 to 2025 falling from $16,000 per person to around $4,000 per person. Concurrent with this collapse was the explosion of poverty which doubled from a quarter of the population to over half. A socialist government took power and focused on redistribution. Those that could, exited. The suggestion is that over seven million Venezuelans left in the past decade. These weren’t the poorest and least capable but those most educated and capable. Those with resources have options. They leave. The rest that are left, suffer.
250 years ago, one of America’s Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, pointed out, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” A separate Founding Father, James Madison, said similarly, “Is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”
Socialism is about shouting the sentiment of envy. A group or government gains favor claiming that a separate group has advantages explaining their wealth and the lack of wealth of others. What the wealthy have isn’t fair. We exist to right this wrong, they claim. Our benevolence is done in the spirit of redistributing to the less advantaged. It is through developing a sense of envy in those that don’t have of those that do have that socialists rely.
Napoleon observed that “Envy is a declaration of inferiority.” Envy seeks to eviscerate excellence not just erode it. UK’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, “The spirit of envy can destroy, it can never build.” Nietzsche offered, “Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.”
The late, legendary NCAA basketball coach, John Wooden asks in his Biography, “Why are there so many who want to build up the weak by tearing down the strong?” By taking things away from those that want to achieve and strive to provide “equality” for those that are weaker, we disincentivize achievers. This doesn’t help anyone. Instead of a rising tide lifting all boats, we’re draining the talent pool and lowering all boats onto the rocks. We can’t have equality and excellence. By stifling strivers, we dull excellence. This moves us backwards, not forwards.
In There’s No Free Lunch, economist David Bahnsen writes, “The damage done in the pursuit of equality surpasses the damage done by inequality exponentially. It is not our inability to achieve equal outcomes that is shameful; it is the defiance of logic and reality that such a pursuit represents. The idea that we would seek to organize a society around such a notion is dangerous, futile, and ultimately, fatal.” We should value excellence over equality. Society is better for it. A quest for equality only pulls others down. The result is a lowering of the performance bar. It hurts stars and lowers the average performance of the group. Equality can only be achieved by taking, by limiting others. It is the opposite of excellence. We can’t have excellence and equality. We must choose.
There’s an internet meme of three boys standing by a fence watching a ballgame which sums up the reality of where equity ends.The shorter child isn’t lifted up but the taller one cut down to size.
Those railing for redistribution can only make claims on the accomplishments of others. They create nothing on their own. They exemplify Napoleon’s sentiment. I must take from you because I can’t achieve myself. That’s not a very empowering place. Contrast that mindset with that offered by Cervantes in Don Quixote, “The brave man carves out his fortune, and every man is the son of his own works.” Cervantes presents the perspective of personal responsibility versus the socialist gospel of envy. Cervantes aspired to earn excellence whereas socialists claim entitlement. Capitalism is about inventing initiative and effort. It’s about prioritizing private property so that those that create get to keep and benefit from the fruits of their labors. Effort is rewarded. The society benefits from a rising tide that lifts all boats.
Even if well-intentioned and keenly concerned with trying to help the marginalized, who is deciding who should help and by how much? Any desire to redistribute is a deep disincentive on producers. Excellence exits. Redistribution can only end in ruin. The producers can only be plucked for so long. Eventually, they give up, get out, or give out. History reflects this reality time and time again.
Related article to consider which is precisely on point.
