Carol Roth, in her op-ed for FOXBusiness, said that Socialism begins with good intentions.
No, socialism does not. Perhaps the first attempts did, but with its unbroken history of wealth concentration, power concentration, and utter failure—even for those in the concentrated top—before us and well known, that much is clear. On the contrary, those proselytizing for and instigating socialist regimes have as their sole goal the accretion of wealth and power to themselves—and this time it’ll be different, this time they’ll pull it off.
Roth’s piece had a number of internal contradictions that illustrate the origins of socialist regimes, even though she seems to have missed them.
The first is her quote from Margaret Thatcher:
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Those pushing socialism know this a priori, though. They have no concern for the future, just the current seizure of all that OPM. They’ll get theirs, and to hell with anyone else.
Then she wrote,
Socialism is quite like robbing Peter to pay Paul….
That’s not starting out with good intentions. Unless it’s a Good Thing to rob someone, especially if it’s someone you don’t like.
And this bit:
Socialism starts out with noble intentions, preying on the envy of the population….
It’s noble to “prey on” the base instincts of the poor? It’s noble to take advantage of others’ envy, to encourage the weak immorally to act out that envy? How does that “logic” work, exactly?
Socialism, in each of its iterations over the last 100 years has not started with good intentions. It has started with the greed of the few with the skill to peddle snake oil. Socialism accelerates downhill from there.