Misrepresenting the 1965 Voting Rights Act

The New York Times claims that the “Supreme Court . . . has weakened the Voting Rights Act.” This is unequivocally false, as I have said.

Here are excerpts from two more recent articles, and my comments.

NYT — End Gerrymandering

For a century after Emancipation, millions of Black Southerners could not vote because of a racial caste system based on laws and violence. That violence was often horrific by design, including lynchings, beatings and strategic terror campaigns to crush any attempt at Black political participation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 attempted to stop this exclusion, and it ensured that voters who had lived in areas with a history of voter suppression could elect representatives who would speak for them in Washington. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 attempted to stop this exclusion, and it ensured that voters who had lived in areas with a history of voter suppression could elect representatives who would speak for them in Washington. 

The current gerrymandering campaign undermines that principle. It disproportionately robs Black Americans of the ability to vote for their preferred candidates. Those candidates are not always Black, but they often are, much as white, Asian and Latino voters often support candidates who share their own background. Race, after all, still matters in American life, as is clear from the large Black-white gaps in income, wealth, educational attainment and life expectancy. 

I left these comments:

Ending racial gerrymandering doesn’t “rob Black Americans of the ability to vote for their preferred candidates.” It removes racial discrimination from redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act does not sanction or authorize racial gerrymandering. It was radically reinterpreted to that effect. The VRA was enacted to enforce the 15th Amendment, secure the individual right to vote, ban voter discrimination based on race, and dismantle barriers to voting such as literacy tests and poll taxes. It’s still one-man-one-vote, and everyone has the same ability to vote for their preferred candidate.

NYT says “Race, after all, still matters in American life, as is clear from the large Black-white gaps in income, wealth, educational attainment and life expectancy.” 

But race shouldn’t matter, collective statistical “gaps” notwithstanding. Statistical disparities will always exist. Strict equality of outcome or circumstance will never exist where freedom reigns because it goes against the laws of nature, which is why our system guarantees equality of RIGHTS before the law.  What matters is that every individual’s rights are secured, equally and at all times. The Left wants race to continue to matter, because their whole collectivist worldview depends on it. It sees all issues through a lens of race and tribes. It may have been understandable, though not justifiable, to racially rig districts 60 years ago. But is it still? When will race not matter in America? How about now? 

From The Supreme Court Has Grown Too Powerful. This Is How to Rein It In, Kate Shaw writes

[T]his is a precarious moment for American democracy and for the mechanisms of democratic participation — and because it’s impossible to ignore the Supreme Court’s role in creating this instability. In this election cycle, state legislatures have aggressively redrawn congressional districts to maximize their partisan advantage and, in Southern states, to extinguish Black political power; the ultrarich are spending tens of millions of dollars helping to elect their preferred candidates; and the president has sought to radically change the rules for voting by mail, while openly promising voters payouts for helping his party retain control of Congress. 

True, the court has rebuffed some of the most egregious efforts at election subversion this year. But it has laid the foundation for the electoral upheaval we are experiencing.

That’s one of the reasons fixing the Supreme Court must be a top priority — and why Democrats, if they take control of one or both houses of Congress in November, must place Supreme Court reform at or near the top of their list.

Beginning with John Marshall’s 1803 pronouncement in Marbury v. Madison that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” we have gradually come to view the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of laws and the Constitution. When the court is functioning properly — when it plays a meaningful but limited role in our system — that’s a reasonable state of affairs, whatever the merits of any particular Supreme Court decision. 

[L]ast term’s Louisiana v. Callais, functionally rendered the Voting Rights Act a dead letter  

“Too powerful” means the Court is doing its job upholding the U.S. Constitution. Louisiana v. Callais is the decision that found racial gerrymandering unconstitutional.

My comment

Some criticisms are valid. But on balance I think the Supreme Court has done a pretty decent job of upholding the Constitution and protecting individual rights from bad law.

But I want to correct one glaringly wrong criticism.

The claim that Louisiana v. Callais “extinguish[ed] Black political power” and “functionally rendered the Voting Rights Act a dead letter” is flat out wrong. The Voting Rights Act secured the individual right to vote equally for everyone. The idea that it established some racial collective “right” to vote was an interpretation of the Act that diminished equality in voting rights. That interpretation made a mockery of the Voting Rights Act, because it switched the right to vote from the individual (where it morally, legally, and logically belongs) to the racial collective, effectively privileging voting majorities within the race-gerrymandered district. It amounts to “All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others”—more equal than all other voters, including voting minorities within the racially rigged district.

The Supreme Court didn’t extinguish black voting power, or anyone’s voting power. It reaffirmed equality in voting rights—one man, one vote—and overturned the horrendous miss-interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Racial discrimination has no place in our electoral process, or anywhere else.

As to reforms, I agree with Marshall . We must be careful not to neuter that vital function of the judicial branch.

Related Reading:

New Jersey’s Racist John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act

Woke Redistricting Madness in NJ

Did SCOTUS Promote or Reject Racism in Alabama Redistricting Case?

Re: Supreme Court Updates: Justices Further Weaken Voting Rights Act, Igniting Political Scramble by The New York Times

Some Thoughts on the 2026 GOP Wipeout

A massive "blue wave" swept the Democrats into significant majorities in both the House and the Senate. What does it mean? 

The Silver Lining

1. The Trump/MAGA RINO disaster is dead. Good riddance. 

2. Trump ruined the Republican Party. This wipe-out clears the path for a stronger pro-Capitalist, pro-liberty, limited government faction to lead a true Republican Party resurgence.

3. The anti-American, criminal ideas of the Democratic Socialists of America will become front-and-center, allowing the American people to learn just how much they threaten our intellectual, political, and economic freedoms. The DSA fades back into obscurity.

4. The threat from the Criminal Socialists gives rise to a strong, principled pro-Capitalist counter-movement. 

The Danger

1. Trump’s Socialist leanings coupled with his narcissistic vanity and lack of principles leads him to work WITH the Socialist Left to advance their criminal agenda. Trump is fundamentally from the Left. He pulled the Republican Party to the Socialist/Collectivist axis, even as he gave the dangerous Christian/Conservative Nationalist wing a strong foothold in the GOP, effectively creating a Collectivist/ Nationalist coalition from the Right. He is more one of them than a pro-Capitalist.

2. No pro-Capitalist, pro-liberty faction arises in the Republican Party, allowing the Socialists to continue to advance in an ideological vacuum.

3. Socialism turns out to have a far deeper grip on the American electorate than I think, crippling moderate Democrats’ ability to hold back the radical Left of their party—meaning all bets are off for the continuation of what remains of our Constitutional liberty in America in 2028 and beyond.

My Facebook post.

Memo to Donna Brazile: If Most Dems are Capitalists, Why is the DSA Accepted in their Party?

From the Washington Post op-ed, Republicans failed to control the fringe. Hakeem Jeffries won’t. “Democratic socialists won’t have the power that the [GOP’s] Freedom Caucus has in the House.”

Donna Brazile, a leading voice in the Democratic Party and a member of the Democratic National Committee, assures us that . . .

Contrary to ridiculous fearmongering by President Donald Trump, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) will not let democratic socialists turn America into a communist nation if he becomes speaker. And he won’t let them control the House, either. 

I’ve known Jeffries for many years. He’s no supporter of socialism, and neither are most Democrats. An overwhelming majority of Democratic elected officials and candidates are capitalists who love the United States. They want government to work within the market-based system to improve life for all Americans, not just the millionaires and billionaires who are prospering under Trump. Democratic socialists will have an opportunity to work with the rest of the party, but they won’t lead it. 

My comment, edited and expanded for better clarity:

If most Democrats are Capitalists, why is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Capitalism’s antipode, accepted into their party? Why, then, would Democratic Socialists be given the “an opportunity to work with the rest of the party” when their policy agenda is precisely to turn America into a communist nation? Because that’s where the Democrats’ philosophy leans. One example: They “want government to work within the market-based system to improve life for all Americans, rather than just the millionaires and billionaires,” forgetting or evading the fact that the market-based system by its very nature improves the lives of all Americans, millionaires and billionaires included. The well-being of consumers, employees, and investors are integrally linked to the fortunes of successful entrepreneurs and businesspersons. Capitalist fortunes are built on improving lives of ordinary people by production of mass goods that consumers, both business and individual, voluntarily buy. The entire policy agenda listed here, while not technically Socialist, tilts that way. So much for the Democrats’ respect for the market-based system. 

What would Brazile say if the Republican party offered the American NAZI Party precisely the same opportunity within the GOP? Don’t worry, they won’t get very far? I’m not buying Brazile’s assurances.

As the Trump GOP has largely abandoned free market Capitalist principles and moved the party toward the collectivist/statist axis, mainstream Democrats have pushed farther Left, strengthening the DSA. I don’t think there is any doubt that Democratic socialists will have much more power than the Freedom Caucus has ever had in the House. Unless genuine Capitalists arise to offer an alternative to this trend, the DSA and its totalitarian agenda will continue to gain until it becomes too late to stop.

Related Reading:

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

To Understand the Democratic Party’s Ultimate Goal, Listen to its Most Radical Wing

Native Americans and this Land

This post appeared on Quora. The poster, Hudson Flores, claims to have “Expertise in elections, policy, and diplomacy.” It came with the caption “This guy KNOWS EXACTLY what’s going on!”

I usually ignore this kind of nonsense. But the last point triggered me.

I posted this comment:

This guy is apparently too clueless (to put it mildly) to realize it, but the shirt he is wearing is addressed to himself.

A race can’t own a continent to the exclusion of all other people of the Earth. Anyone who believes this land belongs to the Indians for all time by the simple historical accident that their ancestors arrived here first is a blazing racist. The Europeans who later came to this continent to set up residence had as much right to emigrate here as the Indians. The same goes subsequently for Chinese, Africans, Hispanics, et al. Everyone born here is as much a native American as the people of Native American descent. 

To the glory of mankind, Enlightened Europeans ultimately established this great country, the United States of America—the first nation in history Founded on the principle of equal, unalienable, universal Individual Rights so that all people of all backgrounds can live in peaceful, respectful, prosperous coexistence. The USA, because of its Founding principles—albeit not consistently practiced—is the first moral nation in human history.

For more on this subject, see the links below.

Related Reading:

Did Ayn Rand Support the ‘Native American Genocide’?

Genocide, Stolen Land, and Other Lies about America by Dr. Jason Hill

QUORA: 'Why aren't Native Americans taking back their country, The United States of America?'

Is America Based on a "Land Grab From the Native American People?"

Was America 'made possible by stealing Indian land and the labor of slaves?'

To Understand the Democratic Party’s Ultimate Goal, Listen to its Most Radical Wing

If one wants evidence of where the Democratic Party wants to lead the United States of America, don’t listen to the vague, hollow, meaningless, evasive, insulting generalities uttered by their electoral candidates. Listen, instead, to the Party’s most radical, most consistent, most philosophical wing—the far Left, “progressive” wing—the soul and beating heart of the Democratic Party, the party’s surging Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). That’s where the gloves come off. 

It is in this vein that I present the leading spokespersons of the DSA. 

I have said that Socialism is not the welfare state. As I’ve observed, the government’s so-called social safety net, while it is socialistic in that it is tax-funded government supplied goods, is layered on a Capitalist-oriented fundamental premise, the rights of the individual. Socialism, however—in any of its manifestations—is the counter-revolution, and the best evidence of that proposition is in the words of one of America’s Socialist leaders.

Romer didn’t actually say “Our Goal is to Destroy Americans’ Liberty”. But she set up a straw man that means precisely that. 

Let’s examine her gimmick. Speaking at the Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) 2025 national convention, Romer said: 

Power only cedes itself to a greater degree of power. We will win by making conditions so intolerable to the ruling class that they would rather give in to our demands than live with the disturbance we cause until we are able to fully seize power ourselves.

On the face of it, this Marxist gibberish makes no kind of sense at all. After all, the United States of America has no ruling class, neither economic nor political, by design of its Founding principles. America’s first organic law, the Declaration of Independence, The Conscience of the Constitution, declares . . .

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.*

For the first time in recorded history, ordinary people were set free from any ruling class or elite. Bucking the tide of history, they created a Constitution to enforce those principles. America has no all-powerful king, religious cleric, military dictator, oligarchy, majority, or slave master. For the first time, the common individual was liberated from rulers. The new nation’s people instead created a government to serve them. Instead of being a subject of an authoritarian of any kind, the people got what they naturally always had— individual self-rule, which the Founding generation called self-governance. Each person is in charge of his own life, setting his own goals, choosing his own values, pursuing his own happiness, by exercising liberty limited only by the equal rights of others—by unalienable right.  The government’s sole responsibility was to secure these rights, holding only those powers justly required to carry out that responsibility. The unique American system was grounded in Natural Rights theory, which held that all persons were born free and equal and have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property that no government or ruler can take away.

So, again, what does Romer mean by “ruling class?” Let’s consider Romer’s use of the term “power.” Seth McLaughlin, writing for The Washington Times, observes:

For Ms. Romer, 43, the movement is about seizing power from corporate and political elites she calls “bosses.” 

“We don’t think that’s extreme,”  [Co-chair Ashik] Siddique said on C-SPAN this week. “We want to transfer power from the 1% to the working class, and to replace capitalism with socialism.” [my emphasis]

But here’s the gimmick: corporate—i.e. economic—power is not the same as political power. Economic power is the power of production and trade, which are voluntary activities freely engaged in by the people exercising their unalienable individual rights. Under the American system of Capitalism, economic power belongs to and is granted by free people. The economic power of the business corporation is derived solely by the consumer’s willingness to buy and use the good it is selling. 

Political power is the power of law—that is, of coercion, of the gun—and belongs strictly to the government, and only the government. When that power is strictly limited and reined in by a legitimate Constitution, like the American Constitution, it is a vital and benign power designed strictly for securing the individual’s rights to self-governance, including economic self-governance—which means rights to property and free trade, career choice, freedom of speech, press, conscience, association, reproductive freedom, and the like.

The difference between corporate and political power is the difference between a producer and a gunman, with the producer free to produce and the gunman, in a free society, strictly limited to the role of protecting that freedom.

Thus, the DSA’s explicit intention is to replace the economic and political freedom and Constitutionally limited rights-securing government of America (Capitalism) with totalitarian government (Socialism)., a power which the DSA’s members intend to “fully seize for ourselves.”

Note that the Democratic Socialists of America intend not to replace a ruling class but to create a ruling class. If the Democratic Socialists didn’t intend that outcome, why do they seek political power to begin with? There is nothing in America’s free society that prevents them from practicing their socialist values privately and voluntarily, and respecting others’ rights to live by their values. Why do they want to eliminate the Senate and make the Presidency and Supreme Court subservient to a single branch, the House of Representatives? To eliminate the checks and balances that the Founders instituted to constrain the power of the government and protect individual rights. Why? To transform our Constitutionally limited republic with a government of unlimited democratic power—a Democracy. Hence, the Democratic Socialists of America.

Never mind the “transfer [of] power from the 1% to the working class”: Both have economic power under the American system, but no power to dominate the other. The power of the “1%”—the business class—is to offer a product, service, or job, and the power of the “working class,” is in the choice people make to buy the offered product or service or accept the job. If the 1% is code for corporate power, then remember that corporate power derives from consumers’ willingness to voluntarily buy their products. When you “replace capitalism with socialism,” you eliminate every bit of voluntary economic power from the private sector, which includes the “working class,” and replace it with coercive centralized political control by the state. 

Note the sinister gimmick: First they set up a straw man—some mythical “ruling class”—then blank out the distinction between economic and political power, with the purpose of draining the economic power of voluntarism from the American people and vastly expanding the political power of the government for the purpose of enslaving us all under totalitarian Socialism. The U.S Constitution deprives the Socialists of the power they seek, so they seek to neuter  or, if possible, repeal the Constitution. The American citizen—the common person—will no longer be sovereign, and will once again become subordinate to some collective goal embodied by the state. 

If Socialism replaces Capitalism, it will be the end of rightful liberty in America—a complete counter-Revolution. The DSA seeks to replace America’s individualistic freedom with collectivistic tyranny. That is why I quoted DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer as saying “Our Goal is to Destroy Americans’ Liberty.” That is actually what she intends. Don’t be duped by the altruistic slogans Democratic Socialist “Progressives” hide behind. The goal behind every far Left candidate is what Romer expressed. They mean it.

And that leads me back to my opening proposition. Why have the Democratic Socialists found a home in the Democratic Party? Why have Democratic Party leaders not denounced them? Why, instead, do we so often hear statements of acceptance, such as “we are a big tent party, open to all ideas?” Because totalitarian Socialism is the ultimate end to which their policies are aimed. To vote Democrat is to vote for the most honest wing of the Democratic Party—the strongly anti-individual rights, pro-Socialist Progressive wing, the currently ascendant Democratic Socialists of America.

250 years ago, the Founding of the United States of America set out to free the ordinary person to self-govern his own life. Despite contradictions inherited from history, the basic social compact remains largely intact. That freedom of self-rule is threatened by The Democratic Socialists of America—and by logical extension, the Democratic Party. 

* [“Created Equal” has long been logically interpreted to mean born morally free and equal—equally free to self-govern; “men” to be generic for all individuals regardless of race, gender, economic condition, et al; and property to be among the “unalienable Rights.” These interpretations are both logical and correct, as they derive from Enlightenment philosophy. See 

Related Reading:

Why I Will Never Vote for a Democrat

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism' 

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger

The Conscience of the Constitution

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’

QUORA: ‘What are the key differences between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism?

 QUORA: ‘What are the key differences between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism, and why do they matter when forming alliances?’

I posted this answer:

To answer this question, I’m going to have to make some assumptions. I’ll assume that “libertarian socialism” means private, voluntary socialism; “authoritarian socialism” means non-voluntary socialism imposed by coercive government control; and “alliances” refers to political alliances.

I dealt with this issue in an essay I published on my blog. I titled the essay Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society. But the title Authoritarian Socialism vs. Libertarian Socialism, though not as precise, would also fit. In my essay, I discuss the many voluntary socialistic and communistic societies that have existed, and still exist, in the United States of America. The point is that socialism practiced privately by voluntary agreement among people who hold these values is perfectly compatible with a free society, because a constitutionally limited republic like the USA protects the rights of all persons to live by their conscientious values so long as they respect the same rights of others.

Authoritarian—that is, political—socialism destroys that rightful liberty by imposing Socialism on everyone from the top down by force of law.

As to alliances, there can be none between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism, because there is no middle or common ground between liberty and tyranny. Libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism are moral and political opposites. The first is the good, because liberty is good. The second is evil, because tyranny is evil. There can be no compromise between good and evil.

For a fuller examination of this issue, see my essay Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society.

Related Reading:

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

QUORA: ‘Why is non-Marxist socialism (libertarian socialism, market socialism, communalism, Fabianism, Fourierism) and its applications (ex: modern Rojava or old Catalonia) ignored?

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

I originally posted a version of this essay about 8 years ago. But after reposting my updated version of Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society, and given the recent surge in interest and support for Democratic Socialism in the United States of America, I see it necessary to repost an updated version of Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter. Why? Because Socialists are pointing to America’s welfare programs as Socialism, and arguing for more of the same. But the welfare state, more accurately called Welfare Capitalism, is not Socialism. Socialism and welfare statism of fundamentally different social systems. The Democratic Socialists are trying to pull off a dangerous bait-and-switch, and if America falls for it, we will end up an enslaved country.

Venezuela is a prime example, among many prime examples, of Socialism fully and properly instituted. But Socialists point to welfare states as examples of Socialism in action. But Germany, England, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, et al are NOT socialist. Socialism is the political implementation of the principle that the interests of “society” as represented by the government take precedence over individual interests. Therefore, socialism denies individual rights, including rights to property and free trade: The “people,” as a number of individuals, exist to serve the interests of society as determined by the state. Socialism, to be socialism, has to deny individual choice (individual rights), because Capitalistic rights directly conflict with it’s principles. As the Socialist Robert Heilbroner observed:

The rights of individuals to their Millian liberties [are] directly opposed to the basic social commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal…

Dissents, disagreements, and departures from norms then assume a far more threatening aspect than under bourgeois [i.e., Capitalist] society, for they hold out the possibility of destroying the very commitment to a moral consensus by which socialist society differs from capitalist.

Nor can we wriggle off this hook by asserting that, among its moral commitments, socialism will choose to include the rights of individuals to their Millian liberties. For that celebration of individualism is directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal. [my emphasis]

These European countries are not socialist (although Germany WAS once socialist, under National Socialist [NAZI] rule). They, like America, are mixed economy welfare states. Unlike totalitarian socialism, Western welfare states still have a healthy degree of private enterprise and free market Capitalism, and thus a still-healthy recognition and protection for individual rights, including rights to property and free trade. Because of this, welfare states’ Capitalist-oriented, hampered market economies can still generate continued prosperity and rising living standards even while carrying the burden of financing the welfare state, differing only in the balance between the two. 

It’s important to get this understanding right, because most Democrats now view socialism more positively than capitalism, according to Gallup.* Welfare statism is different in crucial respects from democratic socialism. It is true that the limited socialistic aspects—mainly redistribution of wealth—of the welfare state requires the limited use of the same statist powers as does full socialism. But its goal, in theory, is a “safety net” for capitalism, not a replacement--i.e., a mixed economy; that is, a mixture, albeit a tense one, between statist income redistribution and Capitalism. Under the Western style welfare state, individual rights and free enterprise are still fundamental, and socialism is limited in scope so much freedom remains. Democratic Socialism implies no limits. The distinction is important. No longer content with the limits of the welfare state, and driven by hatred of freedom, capitalism, and achievement, the Democrats are now in the process of “graduating” to full blown totalitarian socialism, including massive central control and strict economic regimentation. It won’t be easy to bring about in America. But once we start down this road, the result will be the same as it always is--loss of economic, political, and intellectual freedom, growing economic paralysis and eventual collapse, massive human suffering, and the total state. What else can one expect when the individual is subordinated to the collective? Of what importance are hordes of suffering individuals next to whatever grand utopian collectivist ideal the state happens to want to impose “for the good of society?” 

No doubt, Trump has an authoritarian streak--his antitrust threats against Amazon for Bezos’s WAPO editorial criticisms; his regulatory threats against Google for alleged search engine “bias”; his tax bullying of U.S. multinational corporations; his threat of stronger libel laws against reporters; his communistic taking of equity stakes in dozens of private companies; his nation-over-individual rights of Americans’ justification for unConstitutional tariffs. But this is penny-ante statism next to democratic socialism. Totalitarian? Based on

what ideology? Trump doesn’t even have one! Next to democratic socialism, Trump is a schoolyard bully. Democratic socialism is the Al Capone crime organization, rising out of the underworld to rule a nation. Democratic socialism is across the board a criminal enterprise, but with law as protector rather than adversary. It makes the real Al Capones of history look like pickpockets.

If you like Germany, then stick with what Germany actually is, a Western-style mixed economy welfare state. We can at least debate the relative balance between capitalism and socialism. Freedom and prosperity, at least, has a chance. But be aware of what you’re advocating if you declare your allegiance to socialism, democratic or otherwise--the total subordination of the individual to the state.

As theory and history has unequivocally demonstrated, there is no essential difference between Socialism and totalitarianism. A government that owns and regulates the means of production, exchange, and distribution; that can distribute all of a country’s money equally; in which government rather than individual people owns or controls all industry, is a government with total control over the economy. Since economics is the field of human activity by which people support their lives, a government that totally controls the economy has total control over people’s means of survival. A government with total control over people's means of survival is a government that has every individual by the throat. Such a government can enforce its will in every area of life  and liberty through economic sanctions. What freedom, what opposition, is possible under such conditions? Does it matter whether the political leaders are elected or not? A government, of whatever kind, that has every individual by the throat IS a totalitarian state. Logic confirms this truth. History has proven this time and again.

To summarize, the welfare state—more accurately labeled Welfare Capitalism—is a Capitalist-oriented, individualistic, free market system with a government-imposed “social safety net” but with strong though not fully consistent protections for individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Capitalistic freedom is the foundation and the financial support for the welfare state. Socialism is a collectivist other-oriented system that prioritizes the group over the individual, in which the state tolerates individual existence only to the extent that it furthers the goals of the state as the determinant of the collective will. Of necessity, Socialism is totalitarian, because it owns or controls all economic activity—“the means of production”—and thus exerts control over all aspects of people’s lives because the economy is the area of activity in which people work and trade to support their lives. Poverty is the unavoidable result because the market freedom that supports the welfare state is erased under Socialism.

The welfare state is to Socialism what CATO’s Paul Meany and Marian Tupy describe as “the crucial difference between government assistance and government control,” or what more crudely (but I think more succinctly) describe as the difference between the pick-pocket is to the murderer. In the Declaration of Independence it is written,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [to secure individual rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Clearly, the evils of our current welfare statism are “sufferable”—i.e. tolerable. Capitalism, hampered, diluted, and violated as it is in today’s America—still functions strongly enough to carry the welfare burden and still drive prosperity and growth forward. No remnants of  Capitalism in America, as in Venezuela, could ever survive Socialism. That is why the terms Socialism and Welfare Statism matter. Americans must think twice and think deeply about even considering, let alone choosing, Socialism over Capitalism. It’s literally a matter of life and death.

Related Viewing:

Is the US Already Quasi-Socialist? By CATO

Related Reading:

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian--George Reisman

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Elizabeth Warren’s Plan — We’ve Seen This Before--Stephen Hicks

Fascism: Back Door to Socialism that Obama and the Left Well Understand

A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...

QUORA: ‘Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist?’

Why do fascism and communism often go hand in hand when they are philosophically polar opposites?

Is fascism a form of capitalism?’

Bill Maher’s Category Error on Socialism: There’s a big difference between government assistance and government control. By Marian L. Tupy