What's wrong with socialism?

Such is the question I’ve heard from many who have jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon. But rather than ponder the question themselves, they ask it assuming that socialism is really not that bad.
If you are one of these people that accept socialism at face value simply because you follow Obama, then you have my deepest sympathies. I would encourage you to consider the question yourself and decide whether or not it is in America's best interests. I advise against taking any one else's word on it.
Now, what is so bad about socialism? That’s like asking, “What’s wrong with stealing?”
Dyed-in-the-wool leftists would disagree with me on this point, but the fundamental concept of collectivism is the same as stealing. You have something that somebody else wants, but doesn’t have, so they take from you—without your permission—in order to get it. Likewise, you may have more money than somebody else, who wants more, so he turns to the government to get it for him. The government, in turn, dips into your pocket—without your permission—to give more money to the guy who has less than you. As a result, you and the other guy now have the same amount of money and either is better or worse off than the other. This is all done in the name of social justice, fairness, and equity.
The socialist creed, after all, is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What this means is that the government takes as much as you are able to produce and distributes amongst everyone else to meet their needs.
In the animal world, socialism can be likened to the lives of ants and the bees, whose work is done for the collective good. But they have no individuality, identity and no uniqueness about them. Their ingenuity is borne not out of inventiveness, but rather out of conformity, assignment and the repetitive toiling therewith. Their strength lay in the unison of their work. As long as each does its job, the unit, the colony, the hive is safe and secure.
By contrast, consider the coyote, a scavenger and a rogue, but one of the most adaptable creatures on earth. A true non-conformist and pure opportunist, the coyote may choose to run with the pack or go into business for himself the way an entrepreneur does. While he lacks the safety and security enjoyed by the ants and the bees, he has freedom to choose his role in life: Either as a member of the pack or as a sole proprietor.
Unlike the toiling ants and bees, the coyote is able to make his own way, seek out opportunity, pursue it and reap its rewards.
Life may be feast or famine for him, but at least he has his freedom.
I believe socialism is bad for America because it is the antithesis of freedom, liberty and opportunity, the foundations upon which our nation was established and subsequently flourished. Collectivism runs counter to concepts of “life, liberty and [especially] the pursuit of happiness,” which form the basis for the fundamental rights of man.
How can we pursue our individual happiness if the government takes away the means with which to launch our endeavors? How can we be truly free if the government takes care of our every need? And how can a person really be alive if they are unable to live life on their own terms?
The answer is not socialism, which, simplified, means public-owned and public-run. The term public, of course, refers to government bureaucracy and not the people.
Not as extreme or militant as communism, socialism still awards ultimate, final authority to the government over all matters public and private.
Under a true socialist system, all organizations are run by the government in some way or another; either owned outright and managed directly or invested and maintained through bureaucratic supervision.
This means that the state is the majority stockholder on the Board of Directors of every business, industry, company or corporation, all charities, institutions, leagues, coalitions and other non-profit organizations that generate money, funds, and revenue. The state then collects this revenue and decides how best to distribute it throughout its infrastructure.
The growth, maintenance, persistence and sustainability of any organization within a socialist system is at the sole discretion of the government; meaning that the freedom to invest and expand is prohibited without government consent.
With regard to individuals, a socialist government is involved in everybody’s lives from womb to tomb. From our child care to elder care, from early education to career preparation, from what you earn to what you are allowed to keep, from investments to retirement, from health care to the basic essentials of human need—food, clothing, shelter—the government is there as your provider. You don’t have to worry about the uncertainty and risk that comes with freedom and opportunity, because your safety and security is more important. Ensuring that you have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over your head to sleep under takes priority over the yearnings of the human spirit, the human heart. That is the socialist way.
But it is not the American way.
The United States of America did not grow into the wealthiest, most prosperous and arguably the most successful nation in the history of the world because of socialism. It did so because of the partnership forged between republican democracy and free market capitalism.
These two philosophies go together like meat and potatoes.
Both promote individual freedom because they respect the individual by affording him the liberty to govern and support himself, make his own way, to create and build his own legacy, and invest in others.
All of the good that America has done in the world, all of the charity that she has spread to other nations during her relatively young existence has happened because of freedom, liberty and opportunity.
You can't have any of these virtues under the thumb of government ownership and control, because authoritarian rule naturally shuts them out.
How else could an ordinary person go from a miserable failure to an incomparable success without the opportunity to take the risks that liberty and freedom offer? Sure, there’s uncertainty, even danger. But there’s also a light at the end of the tunnel.
The greatest gifts of American liberty are the freedom to pursue one's dreams, to build the life one could have only before imagined, and to be able to regulate oneself rather than rely on government to do it for him.
It is as much about having the opportunity to fail as it is to succeed, to flounder or flourish instead of being dependent upon a government that strives to ensure the security of mediocre subsistence.
Do you know what the difference between a foreign peasant and a poor American is? Opportunity.
In America, the poor don't have to stay poor. If they choose, they can pull themselves out of poverty simply by pursuing a better life. And they can do this because of opportunity; not government. The poor in other countries don't have opportunities to pursue a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. They are forced instead to accept their lots in life, to toil and spin in poverty from cradle to grave. Meanwhile, those in power, those in government rule over them in comparative luxury.
And therein lay the greatest contradiction, the gravest injustice of socialism, or any authoritarian system of government for that matter. While collectivism promotes fairness, sameness and social justice, it also summarily suppresses the masses from reaching the same level of affluence enjoyed by those in power.
Sound familiar?
We fought a revolution against a hierarchal system, because it rewarded people based on their position in government and society instead of on merit. And it punished those who were not so fortunate as to be a member of the nobility.
By comparison, the government leaders of a socialist society are the nobility. Anyone desiring to join their ranks is met by a very subjective process, with the qualifications of membership resting solely at the discretion of those seated firmly in power.
The likelihood of an ordinary working person being accepted into such an exclusive echelon would be about the same as a pauper becoming a prince.
Not a chance.
At least under free market capitalism and a republican democracy we have the chance because we have opportunity and liberty, both of which judge a man by what he does and not by who he is. The odds of an average person becoming a millionaire are probably comparable to those of a pauper becoming a prince…with one notable exception: Opportunity.
Here, at least, in America we have the opportunity to build castles and kingdoms out of nothing, to cultivate and produce abundance from impoverished soil, to become somebody who once was nobody.
If we give up our current political and economic systems in favor of socialism, then we will forfeit our freedom. It’s as simple as that.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
If after all this you still don’t see anything wrong with socialism, then you may indeed deserve what you get.