One of my pet theories about creating a functional society deals with micro- vs. macro- socialism. I've detailed the two before, so I won't revisit that here.

One of the reasons that microsocialism doesn't get much airplay, is because true socialists don't like it. And the reason why shows precisely why socialism is wrong.

Say you have two communities. Community A is, basically a commune. Everyone contributes equally to the commune, everyone shares equally in the commune's wealth. It's a blissful little community, where every need is taken care of. Community B is entirely based on free enterprise. There is no minimum wage, the market sets the prevailing wage, and everyone is free to succeed or fail on the fruits of their own labor.

Now let's assume that you're a busy little beaver and you live in Community A. You put in 60 hours a week, and in the first month there, you have laid the septic systems for 100 houses. And you go home, right next door to your neighbour, who slept half the day on the end of his shovel handle while you labored away. Yet you have identical houses, identical cars, your appliances are all the same, everything you have is equal. You just received the exact same proceeds as a reward for working ten times as hard.

Lowering the quality and quantity of your work is not an option. You're proud of your work and you continue to labor away.

Now, someone comes to visit from Community B. Their best plumber just left town. He comes over, and because they need a plumber, and are in short supply, he tells you that you can make 20 times what you are making in Community B.

Do you stay, for the benefit of the community? Only if you have "idiot" stamped on your forehead. If you're smart, you beat feet for Community B, with the smoke rising from your footsteps.

Meanwhile, back in Community B, you set up your house next to a guy who has a habit of sleeping till noon. He's the shovel leaner in the community. His house  is in disrepair and he is in debt up to his eyeballs. He asks around about who the new guy is, and he hears you came from a community where everyone makes the same wage. Anyone want to take a wild guess what he does? Yup. He borrows enough money for a bus ticket to Community A.

Before long, Community A has a community full of shovel leaners, and Community B is wealthy beyond their wildest imagination, because they've gathered the most productive citizens, leaving the least productive to populate Community A.

Now, the only way to stop this from happening, simply, is by force. Community A will have to force their most productive members, at the point of a gun, to remain in the community. They will need to cloister themselves off, and hopefully keep these productive members from even hearing about Community B, lest they load up and leave in the middle of the night. Democracy cannot exist, because for it to exist, they would need to recognize the fact that they have essentially given a disproportionate share of power to the least productive elements.

These situations are not at all hypothetical. One look at history shows repeatedly that when one's labor is appropriated too heavily by their government, be it through taxes, tributes, or other system of economic control, the subjects do one of two things. They either emigrate, or they revolt. Don't believe me? Head on down to Little Havana in Miami and ask why those folks are there.

There are few people who doubt that we should provide a certain amount of assistance to those who CANNOT (read: are INCAPABLE OF) fend for themselves. I know I sure don't. But for those who WILL NOT, providing them with ANY government assistance is essentially penalizing the most productive elements of our society.

As we enter the primary season, it's key to note that the key Democratic proposals would essentially work to punish the most productive elements. To socialize medicine and make it work, the Democrats will need the most "productive" (read: the healthiest) individuals in the pool to minimize the risk. They cannot create a system that creates health care only for those who are currently uninsured, as many of those individuals are uninsured either by choice or because they are currently uninsurable!

It's one thing for you to have compassion for another one. That's right, and that's good. It's an admirable trait, to be sure. But it is quite another thing for you to force me at gunpoint, to exhibit the same compassion. You can sell all YOU have and give it to the poor, but do not demand that I do the same.