How socialism is like the Flat Earth Theory


By Robert Arvay on

Arguments for the Flat Earth Theory and socialist doctrine share many aspects in common.  At first glance, to a casual observer, the Earth really does seem flat, and for most practical purposes, that observation is sufficient to guide our activities locally.  Only when one travels far enough to change time zones, or to experience a change in the duration of daylight, does the flatness theory begin to seriously break down on the local level.  

Most of us live in a family where socialist, even communist principles seem to prevail.  In my family, we all produce according to our ability, and we each receive according to our need, at least within our means.  Who knew that Karl Marx got it so right?  Why can’t the same principle apply just as well to society at large?  Why can’t we travel 12,000 miles east or west and not notice that we have to reset our clocks between A.M. and P.M.?  

A more than cursory glance at websites promoting the Flat Earth Theory provides an amazing insight into how strongly a false idea can seem to be supported by fact.  Its proponents can explain everything about the issues raised above, such as time differences, and even why the Earth looks round from space — everything, that is, if you take their arguments piecemeal, one at a time.  It’s like a game of whack-a-mole, where as soon as you defeat one item of contention, another one pops up.  Yes, the Earth may look round from space, but then, what about this?  What about that?   

The bottom line is that when one compares flat versus round theories of the planet, the proposal that the Earth is round does not need to be constantly propped and patched up with every new observation.  Occam’s Razor, the principle of using the simplest available explanation that is consistent with all the observations, applies.  

Likewise, the principle of “freedom with personal responsibility” suffices to form the basis of a successful society, successful in economics, in government, and in morality.  Taken as a coherent whole, the idea does not need to be continually revised in response to every “yeah, but what about” argument that the whack-a-mole socialists present.  

Socialist arguments seem persuasive to so many people, only because nearly every flaw in our society can be traced, ironically, to the fact that we have become far more of a socialist nation than a free one.  Every freedom we lose causes further social problems, but the popularized blame goes not to lack of freedom, but to lack of socialism, the source of the problem.  Medical practice in past centuries included the treatment of anemia, a blood deficiency, by draining even more blood from the weakened patient, prolonging the ailment, and often leading to death.  Likewise for socialism.

To be sure, there is no purely economic policy that can heal our nation from its present, and accelerating, decline.  Even if socialism really did make everyone wealthier and more economically equal, even then, without the component of personal morality, the bloodletting would be fatal.  Adherence to moral principles is at least as vital to preserving and advancing our nation as any economic policy.   

The abandonment of those moral principles has sown chaos.  There are now so many implementations of immoral practices, legally enforced, that once again, the whack-a-mole effect has made itself visible.  For example, the myth that men and women are equivalent to each other has been shown to be ludicrous by the implementation of so-called transgender policies.  It cannot be had both ways.  Somewhere a comic has said that yes, women can do anything that men can do, so long as those women are men.  That has become the leftist answer to the iconic and ridiculous question, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”  

While there is room for sincere debate about specific details regarding morality, there is no sustainable argument against the general concept — that the best social basis of society is the family, comprising one man, one woman, joined for life, and their children.  Tolerance at the fringes for variations might not threaten the society, but we have gone so far beyond that, that we have now become a zoo of outright freakish expressions of sexual perversions, each of them praised and celebrated by the social left as a basic human right, which all of us are obligated to support, under threat of losing our livelihoods, and regardless of our own moral principles.

The left has plenty of persuasive arguments to oppose the position presented here.  Indeed, leftists’ arguments are almost as persuasive as those of the Flat Earthers.

We would love to hear your thoughts on this