Glenn Beck is a socialist. He said so himself.
Consider the following quote by Glenn Beck from the recent Conservative Political Action Committee, which was held from February 18th to the 20th:
"When I couldn't afford to go [to college] anymore, I was okay...I educated myself. I went to the library - the books are free...My education was free and I'm proud of that."
Now consider Dictionary.com's definition of the word socialism:
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Am I about to make the absolutely ridiculous claim that red-blooded American public libraries are socialist? I sure am. And this is how I will do it.
Step 1: The public library is a "system of social organization." Everyone pays into it and everyone can take something out of it. The public library is supported by taxes paid by the community, therefore members of the community have a vested interest and ownership in the library.
Step 2: You check out a 'free' book - just like Glenn Beck did! - a book which you have part ownership in.
Step 3: You return the book to the library so that somebody else can borrow the book, thereby benefiting "the community as a whole."
Step 4: Your taxes paid for an item which is then shared with other members of the community... while other members of the community paid for an item which was then shared with you.
Step 5: Now you are a Marxist-worshiping communist-loving socialist. To add insult to injury, the book you checked out from the library was a copy of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." God bless America.
Do I actually believe that public libraries are socialist institutions? No, I do not. As it turns out, I actually work at a public library, and if libraries are socialist institutions, then I am a full-blown socialist.
Why does America have free public libraries if we are a capitalist society? After all, libraries directly compete with bookstores and go against the idea of the supposed "free market." Why would anyone pay for a product if they can get that same item for free? As it turns out, we have free public libraries because early Americans - lead by none other than Benjamin Franklin - realized that a free public lending library would serve the common good. And considering that companies like Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble brought in annual revenues of $24.509 billion and $5.12 billion in 2009, respectively, the free market of bookstores don't appear to be suffering all that much from "socialist" public libraries.
The American economy is a dynamic and complex blend of various public and private companies and institutions. I believe that UPS and FedEx provide superior and faster service to the government-run United States Postal Service, but sometimes I prefer using the USPS due to its lower cost and its convenience. Why walk to the FedEx store when I can pay 44 cents to drop off a letter to grandma in the mailbox in front of my house?
Higher education in America consists of both private and public universities, but public universities must clearly lack in quality, due to the fact that they are partly funded by the government. The University of Michigan, The College of William & Mary, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Rutgers University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill would beg otherwise. But do private universities suffer because of the competition from public universities? The $25.62 billion endowment of Harvard University, the $12.6 billion endowment of Stanford University and the $16.3 endowment of Yale University would beg otherwise.
America consists of taxpayer-funded libraries and privately-owned bookstores, a government-run postal service and parcel delivery corporations, and public and private universities, and yet - despite this obvious encroachment of socialism - has managed to survive for 233 years. Heaven help us should America decide to do the same with health care.
Over 20 Democratic senators (as of this writing) signed a letter last week, urging Majority Leader Harry Reid to put the health care public option up for vote. These senators, hopefully and naively, believe that the public option should be part of health care. These senators understand that the costs of corporate-run health care will continue to skyrocket, and that a blend of corporate health care and government-funded health care will provide the most benefit to the most people. In other words, serve the common good.
To support the public option does not make one a socialist. To support a blend of corporate health care and government-funded health care does not make one a socialist. We already live in a country where we pay for others to borrow books, mail letters, and go to school.
If paying to support the common good of society makes one a socialist, then we're all socialist.
