Yuri N. Maltsev worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team before defecting to the United States. Thankfully, he managed to immigrate to the United States without stopping in Siberia. Today he teaches economics at Carthage College and is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. In a recent speech he gave in Florida, which was part of The Mises Circle in Naples, the former Soviet economist explained to the audience that in truth, all governments are socialist. Yes, that’s right…When it comes to governments, it’s only a question of the quantity of their socialist content.

Shortly after the midterm elections last year, columnist Gene DeNardo made a similar point in an article that appeared at NolanChart.com

“Believing that certain forms of the state or certain forms of governing are socialist and certain forms are ‘free’ is erroneous and a bit ridiculous. All governing states are socialist by nature. The state by definition derives its control and power to enforce its monopoly by confiscating and redistributing the resources of its populace. It cannot survive without acting in this manner. While it may not directly control the ‘means of production’, to ensure its survival and growth it will control the necessary proportion of the product of those same productive means.

Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.”

But can a government exist that does not confiscate and redistribute the resources of its populace? In principle, I tend to think so, just as there might exist certain forms of voluntary socialism that redistribute without confiscation. In the broadest sense, governments are simply authorities that establish and maintain order, and (hopefully) justice, according to a system of law. If such a government can perform these functions with the unanimous consent of the governed and without redistributing wealth, then it would qualify as a non-socialist government, in my humble opinion.

But unless you’re are dealing with such a non-coercive government that does not redistribute wealth, you are dealing with a socialist government. You may be dealing with a big “S” socialist government that has a complete monopoly over vast territories, spanning multiple time zones, or you may be dealing with a small “s” socialist government in your state, county, city or town. But because almost all governments are based on socialism, Maltsev asserts that they can’t be reformed, “fixed” or ever made to run efficiently the way a business can in the private (voluntary), sector. The closest we’ll ever get to subjecting governments to market discipline, is by containing them, keeping them weak and dividing them up into as many competing jurisdictions as possible.

If we fail to do so and allow the consolidation of power that Jefferson, Madison and other founders feared, the result can be a dystopian nightmare, like the one Yuri Maltsev managed to escape from. On the other hand, if we succeed in doing so, we may force socialist governments in the U.S. to compete with each other, resulting in a greater number of freer and more prosperous political societies. Such an arrangement is called federalism, and I believe that it would naturally tend to prevent big “S” socialism from becoming a permanent feature of the federal government and gradually diminish small “s” socialism among the several states, as long as Americans remain free to move from one state to another.

Listening to Yuri N. Maltsev’s speech validated my belief that the federal government cannot be “fixed”. It also reinforced my conviction that Americans in one state shouldn’t be in the business of arguing with people of other states, about just how much socialism they ought to embrace or reject. Every state has a different level of acceptable socialism, but they are all socialist to one degree or another.

Now I’m not saying Americans residing in different states shouldn’t dialog with each other or coordinate their efforts when it’s mutually advantageous. But when more populous states choose to use their disproportionate influence in Congress or their greater number of electoral votes to elect a president who they know will usurp the authority of the states and micromanage their affairs, it violates the Constitution and is a recipe for political strife and disunion.

The Constitution authorizes a federal government of strictly limited powers, which are to be exercised for a few, carefully defined purposes. And both elected representatives and a the people the are supposed to represent, need to be reminded that the Constitution is a compact among the states, which are supposed to function as fifty competing laboratories of liberty, as it were.

The term “Bread and Circuses” is credited to Juvenal, a Roman writer and satirist (AD 55-127). He was describing the Roman citizens’ enthusiasm for free food handouts and gladiatorial games at the Circus Maximus and later at the Colosseum. He felt that Romans had lost the capacity to govern themselves through their mindless self-gratification.

“Bread and Circuses” is a phrase that can accurately be used to describe the American population. Americans are so addicted to entertainment and personal pleasure that they ignore civic responsibility and gladly accept government authority with unflinching obedience.

Well, maybe some of us flinch a little. Reminds me of a bawdy story.

Three friends dared each other to go skydiving. They found a skydiving club and paid their money. After a short lesson, the instructor took them up to 8,000 feet and opened the door of the plane. The first two friends jumped, but the third friend was too scared.

The instructor yelled, “If you don’t jump right now, I’m going to rip off your pants, bend you over and have sex with you.”

“Did you jump?” his friends asked him later.

“Well yes…a little at first,” was his reply.

Americans jumped “a little at first” after the Revolutionary War and up into the mid-1800s. Shays’ Rebellion happened in 1787, The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written in 1798 an ‘99 by Jefferson in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Nullification Crisis happened in 1832. But by 1860, they were willing to allow Lincoln to make war upon the Southern States and completely ignore the Constitution. It was all downhill from then until now.

Thankfully, there are still some American patriots that jump when someone tries to attack them from behind, so to speak.

Just as Juvenal observed in his day, so I believe that Americans have lost the capacity to govern themselves.

Actions speak louder than words. Stated another way, if you want to learn what people truly value, don’t listen to what they say, only watch what they do.

The majority of American citizens want socialism. They may say that they are against socialism but they continue to elect and re-elect politicians that enact socialistic laws and regulations. They do not storm Washington when those politicians violate the Constitution and commit treasonous, criminal acts. They do not impeach and prosecute the criminals in Washington.

Naw…“Trueblood” is on TV. “Harry Potter” is in the theaters. Football season is just around the corner. Michael Jackson and Farah Fawcett just died and we must mourn them indefinitely.

America is on the auction block, and the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government are the auctioneers. The American citizens expect their elected officials to “bring home the bacon,” which means get more Federal dollars coming back home than they are sending to Washington. American citizens want more than their share.

America wants socialism.

Over the past 100 years, American citizens have become addicted to the money that comes to them from Washington. It comes as fat defense contracts to little machine shops, farm subsidies, student loans, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, The GI Bill, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security…and the list goes on. Because most Americans have their taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks, they don’t feel the weight of their tax burden. So, it FEELS like benefits are flowing from Washington back to home.

America wants socialism.

In 2008 and 2009, the Federal Government nationalized the banking industry, the investment industry, a giant insurance company and part of the automobile industry. America barely made a peep.

America wants socialism.

Afore-mentioned Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the biggest entitlement programs in the history of the planet, have become as familiar as the air we breathe. Conservatives in Washington accepted the big social welfare programs long ago, and don’t lift a finger any more to fight against them…or even try to control their budgets. In fact, some of the biggest spending legislation ever enacted came from Washington while Conservatives controlled the House and Senate, and Republicans lived in the White House.

America wants socialism.

America totally forgave George Bush for lying the USA into a Middle East war. American has completely accepted an ever-expanding worldwide military, and embraced the wars in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. They festoon everything with yellow ribbons, and “support the troops”…even when the troops are murdering foreign civilians and violating the Constitution with their actions abroad. (By the way, a tenet of communism was to spread communism by military action. Americans think we’re trying to spread democracy.)

America wants socialism.

Washington politicians have gutted what was left of the Constitution since 2001. Individual liberties have been destroyed. The Patriot Act was enacted, the Transportation Safety Administration made airports into “no-rights zones,” and the Department of Homeland Security has vastly expanded its power over American citizens. All done with only a few whimpers and few objections.

America wants socialism.

The Obama Administration is taking this window of opportunity to take over health care and health insurance in the USA. American citizens have watched the nation’s insurance companies destroy the health insurance industry. There are over 45 million Americans today without any health insurance at all. So, Obama and Congress have the political cover to do a government takeover. American citizens are exhausted from fighting to get health insurance. They want health insurance at any cost, and are willing to trust Uncle Sam to run the healthcare and health insurance system.

Americans want socialism. And Americans are getting socialism as quickly as Washington can deliver it.

I always used to think that America was being misused and abused by Washington. I have changed my thinking about that. I believe that Washington is simply giving America what it wants.

Perhaps the Washington politicos are the most astute observers of human behavior. They are certainly the best at survival.

Curious, though…that last sentence also aptly describes the relationship between a leech and its host.

“It is hard NOT to write satire.” ~Juvenal , Roman satirist, writing about the Rome of his day)

Russell D. Longcore, owner and editor of DumpDC, also owns Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company and Cornerstone Claim Services in Marietta, Georgia

Copyright 2010 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The freedom to fail is an essential part of freedom.  Government- provided financial security necessitates relinquishing the very essence of freedom.  Last week, the big 3 American automakers came back to Capitol Hill with their hands out to the government.  Congress spent this past week debating how much money to give them and what strings should be attached.

Though the bailout plan for the auto industry has suffered what I would call a temporary setback in the Senate, other avenues for public funding are being explored through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.  I am afraid the American auto industry will soon learn that having billions rain down from Washington will not be the blessing one might expect.

The government, after it subsidizes an industry, tends to become a very demanding benefactor.  Politicians may not have any real idea about how to build a car, run a bank, educate a child, heal the sick or build a road, but they are quite adept at using carrots and sticks to manipulate and threaten those who do.  Most of the federal control over education, roads, healthcare, and now banking and soon auto manufacturing, is done through money, mandates and conditions. 

The bailout proposal we were considering would force automobile manufacturers to submit their business plans for the approval of a new federal “car czar.”  This bureaucrat would have the authority to approve the automakers’ restructuring plan, monitor implementation of the plan, and even stop certain transactions he determines are inconsistent with the companies’ long-term viability.

One could argue that if billions of taxpayer dollars are going to flow into a failing industry, then representatives of those taxpayers have “bought” a say in how that industry is run – which is precisely why bailouts are such a bad idea for both the industry and the taxpayers.  The federal government has neither the competence nor the Constitutional authority to tell private companies, such as automakers, how to run their businesses.

I would have thought that failed experiments with central planning and government control of business that caused so much harm in the last century would have taught my colleagues the folly of making businesses obey politicians and bureaucrats instead of heeding the wishes of consumers, employees, and stockholders.  But the auto industry is in danger of learning for themselves one of the oldest lessons in politics: he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.

It is not the job of government to sustain business.  The government should get out of the way, and instead examine excessive regulations, tax policy and red tape that have been hostile to manufacturing in this country.  We should get back on a sustainable economic course in this country, or we are doomed to collapse, as the Soviets did, under the crushing burden of big government and a strangled economy that can no longer pay for it.

Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.

As the Olympics wind down, I am amazed at how things change every four years.  Many Americans were glued to their televisions to watch the excitement from Beijing, and also heard announcers wax nostalgic with memories of times when the Soviet Union was the USA’s biggest competitor for Olympic gold.

There was a time when it was unthinkable that a government as powerful as that of the Soviet Union’s could possibly crumble, yet crumble it did.  The irony is that the strength of the Soviet government was also its weakness, as no country, no economic system can remain strong under the crushing burden that is central planning.

Central Planning is sold to a hopeful people as a way to solve societal problems, to right wrongs, and bring about perfect justice and equality.  Central Planning promises you everything you are entitled to.  As a bonus, goods and services produced by others are added to the list of commodities that everyone has a “right” to.

Suddenly everyone is entitled to healthcare, housing, education, food, et cetera.  It might sound nice that the state will magically provide all these wonderful things, but these rosy promises mask a dehumanizing, ugly reality.  The other side of these entitlements is that now the doctor, the builder, the teacher, the farmer are slaves to the all-powerful state.

No longer do they serve patients, students, or customers.  They work in complete obedience to the state, their only customer.

Central planning will tell you that you are entitled to many things.  Liberty tells you that you are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to whatever you earn, and nothing that you don’t.  While it may seem harsh to some, we must look to basic economic truths and to history to see which model is cruel and which model is kind.

The truth is that central planning cannot provide for economic success like freedom can.  Central planning makes promises it cannot possibly keep.  We live in a world of unlimited wants and limited resources.

If you put a massive and powerful government in charge of distributing those resources, it is not a surprise that government and those in bed with government are first in line for those resources.  The poor and the middle class – the most hopeful and trusting – are hurt the most, as the state always underestimates their needs and overestimates their ability to pay taxes and absorb inflation.

The Soviet Union’s collapse is a dramatic example of the failure of central planning. Americans celebrated this collapse, not only because it meant less competition for Olympic gold, but it provided hope that with the end of the Cold War, our policy makers could drastically reduce overseas commitments and out of control military budgets.

Most especially, we celebrated because with the collapse of Soviet communism it was apparent that liberty, not central planning, is stronger.   Freedom empowers the individual.  Central planning dehumanizes the masses.

There may always be a struggle for power and government, but for this reason, freedom will always win out in the end.  And as we celebrate the accomplishments of our individual athletes in Beijing this year, we must continue to go for the gold here at home, and keep the flames of liberty burning bright.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

President Bush’s faith-based initiative is a signature program of his administration. But not all Americans share the president’s belief that the government should work in close partnership with religious organizations willing to perform nonreligious public services, like running homeless shelters or drug counseling programs.

Wednesday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case that examines to what extent those opponents have legal standing to file federal lawsuits alleging that the White House’s faith-based initiative amounts to unconstitutional entanglement of church and state.

The case stems from a 2002 lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin-based group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Members of the group filed the suit as taxpayers who objected to having their tax money used to support religion.

Although the lawsuit brings up important issues of government involvement in religious organizations, it’s still missing the most important point. What’s avoided is the essential issue; the constitutionality of the American welfare state. And, no matter what the Supreme Court rules, the growth of government power will continue unchallenged.

Let it be clearly stated: Whether or not government funding gives rise to federal support of religion is an important, but secondary issue. The primary concern is the force used to support the funding in the first place.

Just like Bill Clinton, George Bush advocates new governmental intrusions into charity, education, health care, and other welfare programs with appeals for “compassion.” The faith-based initiative is openly a Bush-Republican project, yet it only repackages and grows the socialist concept of welfare. It’s called “charity” but it’s simply welfare under a different name. The politicians and pundits who promoted these initiatives were “conservatives,” but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in any form of welfare or charity.

Forcing people to be generous isn’t compassionate or moral, and nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to levy taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens.

As the welfare system has grown and grown in the past four decades, we’ve been exposed to countless problems and massive financial waste associated with it. Repeatedly, politicians have claimed that they know just how to make the welfare system better. We’ve seen new names and countless “reforms.” And, over and over, we’ve been told of great individual successes – always highlighting how the government is supposedly making people’s lives better.

But, despite all the highly-touted programs, the number of welfare recipients doesn’t really decline; the cost doesn’t seem to do anything but grow — and the epidemic of homelessness, drug use, teen pregnancies, family breakups, and crime — continues unabated.

The only reform deserving any real attention is that which will get the federal government out of welfare completely, as mandated by the Constitution.

Taxing, spending, borrowing, and printing of money does not lead to a prosperous society. It didn’t work in places like Russia, Japan and Germany, and it isn’t working in America either. At first, these actions seem to revive the economy, but they eventually become the source of the problem.

This is not a Republican Party issue, and it’s not a Democratic Party issue. It’s a problem of government power; the power to intrude into your life and force you to donate money to other people, whether you believe in their cause or not.

The notion that the federal government can best solve the problems of drug use, poverty, and homelessness by putting every private church and charity under the umbrella of government funding is completely delusional and economically ruinous.

Therefore, instead of continuing the expansion of the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should immediately return the responsibility and control over charitable giving to the American people. How can this be done? It’s simple — by quickly reducing our tax burden to an absolute minimum.

If we want to improve the job we’re doing of helping the needy — the poor, the hungry, the homeless — the federal government should promptly stop taxing the American people so much. Then you’ll be able to give your own money to groups you support, and groups that know how to use your money wisely.