Guys, did you know if we divided the lottery jackpot by the population of the country, everyone would get like, over $4 million?
At least, that was the content of an internet post circulating these past few days:
Well, I hate to break it to the brilliant mathematicians who came up with this one, but the then-current jackpot of $1.3 billion divided by the estimated population of 300 million is $4.33, not $4.33 million. And while we’re at it, the U.S. population is roughly 318 million, not 300 million—which means your share would be smaller still: $4.08.
But all is not lost; this Facebook phenomenon is still really valuable.
A really valuable lesson on what socialism is, actually.
It’s a good time to have it, too, given socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' growing popularity nationally. Indeed, he’s based an entire campaign on the underlying message of this Facebook phenomenon: wealth distribution is a positive thing.
Here's the nut of it: whether or not it intended to, this Facebook post is a perfect explanation of both what people THINK socialism can do, and what it ACTUALLY does.
You see, in a perfect "utopia," we could divide up all our nation's vast resources equally — and everyone goes home fulfilled and happy. That’s this Facebook post on its face.
Isn’t that what we always hear? "Well gosh guys, the top 1 percent have a CRAZY amount of wealth. Look what would happen if we just divided it up??”
The problem is, of course, that socialism NEVER takes into consideration human nature.
Human nature — that pesky sinful condition that’s a part of us all. And it’s the driving force behind corruption, greed, and everything else that makes dividing up wealth fail miserably, every time.
Utopia is really easy to talk about. It's impossible to implement so long as sin (played out in selfishness laziness, greed, etc.) plays a role in this world. Just ask the residents of Jamestown, for example.
I said before that this Facebook post explains perfectly what people THINK Socialism can accomplish, and what it ACTUALLY accomplishes.
Indeed, it actually works out that the post was so wildly wrong, mathematically. After all, isn't that always how people always end up under the redistributive tenants of socialism? That is, they're promised the world, and yet they find themselves with a miserable fraction of the glories promised?
It illustrates Winston Churchill’s definition perfectly: socialism is essentially the “the equal sharing of miseries.”
That’s the equal distribution of poverty. Of mediocrity. Of “meh.”
As unapologetic über-sosh (that’s “über-socialist” for those outside the inside jokes at our family dinner table) Bernie Sanders slowly but surely begins to overtake fellow (yet less vocal socialist) progressive Hillary Clinton, I want to challenge the American people — particular my friends on the left:
Drop concepts of whether or not it's "fair," (for the record, life has never been, isn't, nor ever will be perfectly fair), and prove me wrong.
Show me how socialism doesn’t equally distribute mediocrity in the BEST cases, and poverty in the worst. Show me how socialism doesn’t impede people from climbing the ladder. After all, who can (or would want to) climb when it’s being handed to them, and when getting to the top only means you’re the target of raucous cries of “it’s not FAIR!”
Show me a place where the ideals of Berne Sanders and every other socialist the world’s ever seen haven’t achieved mediocrity; where socialism hasn’t curtailed ingenuity and innovation; where socialism hasn’t succeeded in doing exactly what socialists like Sanders are so avidly against: made it impossible for the poor to get any better.
You up for the challenge?
Mary Ramirez is a full-time writer, creator of www.afuturefree.com(a political commentary blog), and contributor to The Chris Salcedo Show (TheBlaze Radio Network, Saturday, from noon to 3 p.m. ET). She can be reached at: email@example.com; or on Twitter: @AFutureFree
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.