by Ethan Mikolay, COLUMNIST
1 December 2017
Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are two very different concepts. The first champions the idea that everyone is given the opportunity to succeed in life, while the second demands everyone be equally successful.
In Bernie Sanders’ fantasy world where materialism is nonexistent, money is no longer an issue, and man has no sin, equality of outcome may be possible.
But given those things do exist, and given the track record of socialist and communist countries that are built on the concept of equality of outcome, the idea of supporting such a concept is ridiculous.
Famous examples of states currently or previously influenced by Marxism or Leninism, (two political theories that serve as platforms for socialist and communist states), are Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
That alone should be enough of a deterrent, and that’s not even taking into account the cases of immense corruption and evil to spawn from those countries.
However, according to a survey published by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in 2017, about half of millennials prefer to live in a socialist or communist country over a capitalist one. On top of that, 32% are favorable toward Karl Marx, one of the founders of modern day socialism and communism.
Those critical of capitalism find solace in Bernie Sanders and his “democratic” socialist policies. He frequently cites the “top 1%” (now top .1%) to argue that economic inequality in this country is a pressing issue, and the government should step in to solve it.
RETRACTION: When originally published, this opinion column included a poll of Oswego East High School students. Unfortunately, the Editorial Board discovered later that the poll, while not conducted by the writer of this published work, had not been conducted by the assigned staff according to the guidelines for publication on this site and has therefore been removed. The Editorial Board would like to apologize for this oversight.
It may sound persuasive, but when you look at the numbers, the poor in the U.S. are not as poor as they’re made out to be.
“In 2011, the official poverty line in the U.S. was $23,021 for a family of four, or $15.77 per day per person (the precise poverty line varies by household size and composition). That is a fair amount higher than the generally accepted $10 threshold for attaining global middle-income status,” Rakesh Kochhar said according to an article published by Pew Research Center in 2015.
This is not to downplay the struggles of poverty in any way, but when those on the left try to drive home the severity of economic inequality in the U.S., they fail to recognize how much capitalism has improved the lives of every American, not just the “top 1%”.
“The share of poor households that have a given amenity tends to equal the share of all U.S. households that had the same amenity 10 to 15 years earlier,” according to a report published by the Heritage Foundation in 2011.
Only through capitalism can luxuries historically reserved for the rich become common commodities.
When people fail to recognize this, they turn to systems like socialism and communism. They believe redistribution of wealth, spearheaded by a regulation-happy government, is the solution to such inequality.
RETRACTION: When originally published, this opinion column included a poll of Oswego East High School students. Unfortunately, the Editorial Board discovered later that the poll, while not conducted by the writer of this published work, had not been conducted by the assigned staff according to the guidelines for publication on this site and has therefore been removed. The Editorial Board would like to apologize for this oversight.
The problem is that the fairness these systems desire is, ironically, unfair.
In order to redistribute wealth, the money has to come from somewhere. The most common proposal presented by the left is to heavily tax the rich.
Only through capitalism can luxuries historically reserved for the rich become common commodities.
Margaret Thatcher–the conservative Prime Minister of Britain during the 80’s and 90’s– was a fierce opponent of this concept.
“I would much prefer to bring [the Labour Party] down as soon as possible. I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money,” Thatcher said in 1976 according to an interview published by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.
Decades later, this quote holds true.
According to an article published by Politico last year, Bernie Sanders’ plan is to increase taxes across the board, especially on the rich, to fund social programs including universal healthcare and free college tuition.
But how is that fair? Why should the rich pay more per dollar simply because they make more money? Why should they be responsible for funding programs they may never need or use? How can we trust the government to use that money effectively?
It’s not fair. The rich in this country aren’t hermits that hide money so others can’t use it. They invest, they expand, and they employ. It’s nonsense to believe they should be punished for having such wealth when their success is instrumental in the country’s success.
If rich capitalists are evil and greedy in the left’s eyes, it makes no sense to assume politicians would be any different.
Sadly, the rise of Bernie Sanders’ popularity and the aforementioned survey results are emblematic of a societal problem. Socialists and communists will never go away, nor should they be censored, but the fact that our country’s future is in the hands of a misguided youth is frightening.
Ethan Mikolay is a columnist for Oswego East High School’s online news magazine the HOWL