| by Dan Mitchell |
I realize that mocking socialism is like taking candy from a baby, but I have several items to add to our collection.
But today I’m going to follow the advice of some readers who have told me that I should make a serious point with each bit of satire so that readers (especially those not already immersed in these issues) understand why socialism is both laughable and tragic.
Our first example is some humor based on The Simpson’s, and it makes the important point that majoritarian coercion is still coercion.
Which is why America’s Founders did their best to limit the extent of majoritarian democracy.
I like this next image because it’s the satirical version of my column on why the left should be nice to upper-income taxpayers.
Sadly, my friends on the left seem unable to resist killing – or at least driving away – those golden geese.
And when more and more people are riding in the wagon and fewer and fewer people are pulling the wagon, the end result is not pretty.
Speaking of not pretty, this is the R-rated version of a great Michael Ramirez cartoon.
President Eisenhower also had something to say about free stuff.
Moving to our next example, socialists have this romantic notion of a society where everyone pulls together for the common good.
But when they try to set up such systems on a voluntary basis, they inevitably failbecause of an unsolvable incentive structure.
Which is what makes this sign funny…and accurate.
Reminds me of this superb tweet.
Our final example just appeared in my inbox this morning, so it’s very well timed.
It makes the all-important point that ever-expanding government power is bad for civil liberties (hence this very powerful poster about gun control) and bad for full stomachs.
While the image is funny, the real-world consequences are not.
Poor people are starving to death in Venezuela.
And don’t forget the tens of millions of deaths thanks to famines in Mao’s China or the Ukraine under Stalin. Or the mass starvation in North Korea (which was portrayed as a triumph against obesity by an especially despicable bureaucrat at the World Health Organization).
To be sure, there’s a big difference between liberal socialism and totalitarian socialism. I’d take the former if forced to choose. And even when considering liberal socialism, there’s are big differences between market-friendly versions and intervention-based versions.
But, all things considered, I prefer freedom and prosperity.