The Moral Objection to Socialism

Having grown up in Canada, and benefited from the free healthcare and highly subsidized public education system, I can say that the social democratic model of government is not all that bad, so long as there is a rigorous system of rights in place that the State is obliged to respect.

But the subject of human rights raises interesting questions about the moral status of socialism. In point of fact, I would like to argue that if human rights do indeed exist, they furnish us with a cogent moral objection to socialism and the welfare state. Namely, I would like to argue that people have certain rights that no individual or group can violate. Furthermore, where a capitalistic economy is made possible by the free exchange of goods and the voluntary participation of rational agents, socialism is only be made possible by the coercive violence of the State. By trumping the rights of its citizens, it uses violence to force them to pay for public goods through taxation. Insofar as socialism is sustained and maintained by violence, and impinges on the rights of its citizens, it must be rejected.

Let me use the example of welfare in Canada. Having a welfare system means every Canadian is forced to pay part of their income to other Canadians. For every every 5-day work week, for example, the government forces its citizens to effectively work one of those days for another Canadian. Where other countries may rely on voluntary charitees to take care of the poor, the Canadian government obliges all of its citizens to contribue through taxation. If a Canadian should object to having their hard earned income go to strangers, and subsequently decides to withold paying taxes to the government, one of several things will happen, keeping in mind that the State has a monopoly on the use of coercive force in society. If a citizen fails to pay their taxes either they will be (a) fined, (b) have their property confiscated, (c) their children taken away by Child Services, (d) serve jail time, or, should they resist arrest, they may even (e) be shot. In other words, Canadians risk life and limb should they refuse to participate in the welfare system. In the name of the 'common good', the State is prepared to forfit the rights of its citizens to life, bodily intergrity and personal property, and will threaten them with violence should they decide not to help their neighbor.

There are legitimate uses of violent force. Repelling a thief, murderer, or rapist for instance. But refusing to give to charity is not a legitimate reason to use violent force against the citizens of a free country. And that's what socialism tries to be, isn't it? Forced charity? Imagine if the Salvation Army began to arm its volunteers with weapons, so that instead of ringing a bell in front of the Walmart during Christmas, they would be shooting an AK-47 into the air, and threatening to kill the shoppers if they refused to contribute to the charity. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is precisely what welfare states like Canada are doing to their citizens. So I ask you, is it right to threaten a person with death if they refuse to give to charity (or welfare)? I think not. Charity should always be voluntary, and never be forced.

But think of all the other State-sponsored things that are paid for by taxpayers. Museums and concert halls, ice rinks and skateboard parks, secular schools and libraries. Sure, these things are nice to have. But they can just as easily be built and funded by the private sector through voluntary donations. By keeping it voluntary rights will be respected. Violence is unecessary. Such projects can only be built at public expense by threatening citizens with violent coercion should they refuse to underwrite the projects through taxation. That is simply immoral. Insofar as socialism depends upon the violent coercive force of the State, it too is immoral. The State should have no right to violate the rights of its citizens, even in the name of public good. Hence, my moral objection to socialism.