"Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as 'spreading the wealth', 'income redistribution' or caring for the less fortunate.  Let's think about socialism.  Imagine there is  an elderly lady down the street from you.  She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it.  Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer:  Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week?  If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisionment?  I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government because it would be a form of slavery, a forcible use of one person to serve the purpose of another.  Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings?  That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn.  I'd say there is little difference between the mandates.  While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purpose of another.  Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn.  This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purpose of another.  Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.  This is why socialism is evil.  It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man."

 

George Mason University economics professor

Walter E. Williams

Quoted from the Patriot Post 11/24/08