In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a conservative person in general, have been happy to be associated with the term Republican in times past (though I wonder about that now), am half Norwegian and half English “mutt” so I guess “White” or “Caucasian”, but I think “American” fits me best.

I do not believe all cultures or belief systems are created equal. I contend that you can't believe in the Marketplace of Ideas and believe so. I believe people are entitled to think they are right, and are free to convince their neighbors. Where the proponents of Imperialism went wrong, and where we might also, is by trying to impose that view on others without their consent.

The White Man's Burden, while originally a poem by Kipling, is a term that has come to represent the attitude that argues for Imperialism on moral grounds. In short, the “White Christian” nations of the world had the duty of bringing, progress, prosperity, the rule of law etc. to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wanted it or not; that through the conquest of the “less fortunate” peoples, they could make the world a better place, both as a whole, and for the conquered in particular. You see, they had the Truth, the Right Way, and they couldn't keep it to themselves. It had to be shared with the rest of the Human Family, even if at the point of a bayonet. Many of the “less fortunate” couldn't read and write, had no codified system of laws, lacked a modern understanding of science and medicine, and were generally doomed to a more impoverished, hand-to-mouth existence.

In all fairness to certain aspects of Western Culture, I think they did have it better than a lot of places in the world. If nothing else, a good system of laws is incredibly beneficial to the happiness of societies the world over. Any fair assessment of the age will show that those countries that shouldered “The White Man's Burden” had larger GDP per capita, longer life expectancies, more leisure time per hour worked, and an overall better standard of living than what we now refer to as “The Third World”, even accounting for any unfair advantage taken of their conquered peoples. Even now, many peoples in the world would do well to learn some simple lessons that would greatly increase their wealth and happiness. While many cultures have their virtues, I will not go so far as to say they are equal as no free person would ever speak of Despotism as equal to Representative Government. This in no way justifies the conquering of these peoples, to make them better according to the conqueror.

So, what does this have to do with Socialism? Well, what is the argument for socialism? Basically, it is that the Free Market isn't fair so some benevolent party needs to fix it, in this case the Government. Some people are poor, or don't have all that others have, so we will take from those that have and give it to those that do not.  Great, grand, wonderful, you want to help people in need, how is that bad? Well, for starters, it isn't voluntary. It is done by taking money, by force, from certain people that are deemed to have enough, or too much, money and giving it to others deemed in need, according to the Government. Any government as never truly a faceless entity, but is made up of individuals. So, this money will be redistributed not according to the will of the individual, but according to those in power. Another good guide for knowing if some Good Intention is paving the road to Hell, is to ask yourself what is being sacrificed on the alter for it. Almost everyone would love to have world peace, but if that peace were to require the extermination of half the worlds population, or the conquest of the known world(both arguments used throughout history, and the goal of Nazism, and Communism), for example. In this case, the individual's decision making is taken away, or Liberty, along with his Property. No one gets the chance to say “no, thanks” or to make the argument that perhaps the Government's way isn't the best way to accomplish its avowed goal. The ultimate decision-making power is in the hands of a few people in Government, which is in-line with Monarchies, Aristocracies, and Dictators the world over, not with with Classical Liberalism, where the individual is entrusted with his own destiny. If you make this argument to people that are in favor of Socialism, they usually say something along the lines of “Well, what about the little guy, do we just let them die?” etc. I assert that if you think it is right to give of your money to the poor etc, then you make it so by giving of your own, and trying to convince your neighbor to do the same. You usually get something along the lines of “But they don't give!” or “How can you guarantee that they will help?” You can't guarantee they will listen to you, but have no right to take your neighbors car to give it to someone that needs it, but you have all the right in the world to give your own, or let your neighbor know about someone down on his luck. If he does nothing about it, shame on him, but that doesn't give you the right to take it. But, that is what Socialism does; It forces people to be “charitable” according to the belief of a few. In this way, Socialism is like the White Man's Burden. They try to make the world in their own image by force. Rather than speaking with the other nation, or the other citizen, and convincing him of the virtues of your way of thinking, you force him to do what you believe to be right, and then have the mendacity to say it is for their own good! And, not surprisingly enough, the consequences of both ways of thinking are similar; national failure, possible unrest, and corruption at the top due to the concentration and usurpation of power.