I’m all for free speech, but this is borderline sedition.

Socialism has it’s roots in the distempers of the working class, which were largely legitimate at the time given the conditions most of the working class lived/worked in around the time of the industrial revolution.  Now don’t get me wrong, wealth redistribution has never been a good idea, but better treatment for workers (unlike wealth redistribution) was an honorable goal a hundred years ago or so.

But modern socialism has little to do modern workers.  Instead, modern socialism seems to be entirely about class warfare.  Which is why, I think, it’s mostly promoted by artists, college students and professors.  These are people who, without the industry of others, would not be able to survive.  You cannot, after all, eat a painting or keep warm with a doctoral thesis.  Which isn’t to say that those things are worthless, but you get my point.

Modern socialists claim to be for the “working man,” and class envy is a powerful rhetorical tool that draws in a lot of rent-seeking malcontents of all social and economic backgrounds who just want more of your money, but ultimately I think the modern American worker wants little more than the opportunity to earn his/her wealth and live his/her life with as little interference from the government as possible.  Or, put another way, a simple thing called “individual freedom,” which is the polar opposite of socialism which is all about the collective taking from the individual for the common good.

Or, at least, what the small group of people running the “collective” deem is the common good, which usually isn’t all that common or good.

Socialism also runs counter to America’s tradition of being a meritocracy.  In America, you are worth what you can earn in the free market by dint of your knowledge, labor and innovation.  Socialism doesn’t emphasize individual accomplishment, instead focusing on enforcing equality among all people.  Refusing to recognize that not all people are actually equal.  Which may sound like a horrible statement, but consider this: Are you and your accomplishments equal to those of your neighbor who hasn’t had a job in three years and lives off of various federal assistance programs?  Of course not.  You have more, because you’ve worked for more.  He is poor because he has refused to earn for himself.  Yet under socialism, you’d be force to share the fruits of your industry with him.

That may be “equal,” but it’s hardly fair.