Thread: The Federalist Papers | Socialism is built on envy

The Federalist Papers

8͏h͏·

Socialism is built on envy.

It starts with the idea that someone else has too much, and instead of asking how they earned it, built it, risked for it, or sacrificed for it, the socialist answer is always the same, take it.

Take the money. Take the property. Take the business. Take the profit. Take the choices.

Just do not ask them to take the job.

They want the reward, but not the responsibility. They want the paycheck, but not the pressure.

They want the house, the car, the savings, and the business, but not the 80 hour weeks, the missed vacations, the payroll stress, the risk of failure, or the years of work nobody saw.

The old Soviet Union promised equality and delivered bread lines, secret police, prison camps, corruption, fear, and party bosses who lived better than everyone else.

Cuba promised liberation and delivered ration books, poverty, censorship, and generations of people trying to escape.

Venezuela sat on enormous oil wealth, then socialist politicians wrecked the country so badly that millions fled because they could not find food, medicine, work, or basic stability.

Every time, the pitch is the same. The rich will pay. The government will provide. Nobody will be left behind.

Then the bill comes due. Nothing is free. Somebody pays. You pay through taxes, inflation, shortages, worse services, fewer choices, lower wages, and less opportunity.

And once the politicians control the money, they control the people.

That is the real goal for the people pushing this garbage.

They do not want to lift everyone up. They want to decide who gets lifted, who gets punished, and who has to shut up and obey.

The Federalist Papers

9͏h͏·

Socialism always begins with the same promise, more fairness, more security, more things provided by government, more things labeled “free.”

Then reality shows up.

In the old Soviet Union, shortages of basic consumer goods were a chronic part of everyday life. People stood in long lines for food, clothing and household necessities because government planners could not efficiently determine what millions of people wanted, where they wanted it, or how much should be produced.

Cuba has spent decades under rationing. The government provides heavily subsidized basic goods, but Cubans have routinely dealt with shortages of food, medicine, fuel and other necessities.

Venezuela is an even more recent warning. One of the wealthiest countries in Latin America, sitting on enormous oil reserves, descended into severe shortages, hyperinflation and economic collapse after years of nationalization, price controls, reckless spending and increasingly authoritarian government.

Different countries, different circumstances, remarkably similar economic problems.

The mistake is believing politicians can repeal scarcity.

They cannot. Nothing is really free.

A government can give you something without charging you at the cash register, but somebody still has to produce it, somebody has to pay for it, and resources still have to be allocated.

Call it free health care, free college, free housing or free groceries, the word “free” does not eliminate the cost. It simply moves the bill somewhere else.

Markets are imperfect, but prices perform an enormously important function. They tell producers what people want, encourage additional production when something becomes scarce, and force people to make choices.

When politicians replace those signals with central planning and government mandates, eventually the shelves have a way of telling the truth.

You can declare everything a human right.

You can declare everything affordable.

You can even declare everything free.

But you cannot legislate abundance into existence.

What do you think, why do socialist promises remain politically attractive when history has repeatedly shown how badly centralized economies can perform?

The Federalist Papers

1͏2͏h͏·

This cartoon gets something fundamentally right about life that too many people have forgotten.

You are not going to vote your way into personal success. You are not going to argue enough people into agreeing with you that suddenly your problems disappear. And you certainly are not going to become free by waiting around for government to create the life you want.

Voting matters. Politics matters. Bad government can absolutely make life harder. But at some point, you still have to wake up in the morning and produce something another human being actually values.

That is where freedom begins.

Solve a problem. Learn a skill. Build something. Start a business. Become better at your job. Create a product somebody wants. Provide a service somebody needs. Take a risk. Work harder than the person next to you, make smart decisions, and yes, hope that a little luck comes your way.

None of that guarantees success. Life does not provide guarantees.

But it gives you a hell of a lot better chance than sitting around demanding politicians rearrange society until everything feels fair.

That is also why socialism gets this almost exactly backward.

Socialism teaches people to look outward. Who has more than I do? Who should be taxed? Who should provide for me? What should government guarantee? Which politician will redistribute enough money to finally make things right?

Freedom asks a very different question.

What can I do?

What can I create? What problem can I solve? What value can I provide that somebody will voluntarily pay me for?

The freest people I have known are not necessarily the richest. They are the ones who understand that government is not their parent, their employer, their provider, or their life plan.

They participate in politics, but they do not wait for politics.

They get busy building.

And sometimes, with hard work, good judgment, persistence, and a little luck, they build something extraordinary.

What do you think, does real freedom begin with government giving people more, or with people becoming less dependent on government in the first place?

The Federalist Papers

1͏4͏h͏·

Elon Musk just made one of the most extraordinary economic predictions I have heard in a long time.

Within 10 years, Musk says there could be more than 1 billion humanoid robots, and he believes each one could eventually be roughly five times as productive as a human worker.

Put that together and Musk says robots could produce more than all of humanity combined.

Maybe he is right about the timing, maybe he isn't. Musk has certainly made ambitious predictions before.

But I think focusing only on whether we actually reach one billion robots misses the bigger story.

Because the technology is coming.

AI is already improving at a staggering pace. Robots are becoming more capable. Factories are becoming more automated. Eventually these systems may reach the point where robots can manufacture additional robots.

That is where things could get wild.

But Musk also raised another issue that Washington should be paying very close attention to.

Electricity.

Musk says the biggest limit on AI may soon be the amount of power available to run it.

AI chip production is increasing rapidly, but electricity generation outside China isn't keeping pace. Musk cited estimates suggesting AI could face a power shortfall of at least 15 gigawatts as soon as 2027.

Think about what that means.

America could invent the world's best AI, build the world's best chips and develop the world's best robots, then discover that we don't have enough power plants to run them.

Meanwhile, China has spent years expanding its electricity generation and industrial capacity.

That makes energy policy part of national security.

If this really is the beginning of another industrial revolution, America needs abundant electricity, domestic manufacturing, technological freedom and the infrastructure necessary to compete.

The robot revolution may be coming whether Washington is ready or not.

The Federalist Papers

1͏7͏h͏·

Everyone in America knows our health care system has problems. It is expensive, bureaucratic, maddening, and sometimes feels like you need a lawyer, an accountant, and a hostage negotiator just to understand the bill.

But let’s stop pretending Canada is the answer.

When you need actual medical care, the U.S. system is vastly superior, especially when it comes to access to doctors, specialists, diagnostics, and surgery.

In Canada, only about 27 percent of adults with a primary care provider were able to get a same-day or next-day appointment for a non-urgent need.

More than one-third of Canadians who saw a specialist waited three months or longer just for that initial consultation.

Then it gets worse.

The Fraser Institute’s 2025 physician survey found the median wait from family doctor referral to treatment in Canada was 28.6 weeks. Orthopedic surgery was 48.6 weeks. Neurosurgery was 49.9 weeks.

In America, a recent survey of major metro areas found the average wait for an orthopedic surgery appointment was about 12 days.

Is our system perfect? Not even close.

But if your hip is shot, your knee is failing, or your spine is a wreck, the difference between 12 days and nearly 49 weeks is not some academic policy debate. It is pain, mobility, work, dignity, and quality of life.

And while all this is happening, Canada has MAID. In 2024, 16,499 Canadians received medical assistance in dying, representing 5.1 percent of all deaths.

So yes, people can call Canadian health care “free” all they want. It is paid for in taxes, waiting, suffering, and too often, despair.

Why anyone in America would want so called “Medicare For All” is beyond me.

Would you trade America’s health care system for Canada’s waiting lists?

The Federalist Papers

1͏8͏h͏·

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has some disappointing news for conservative men everywhere. She would “probably not” date one.

Somehow, I think they’ll survive.

TMZ’s Charlie Cotton caught up with the New York Democrat on Capitol Hill and asked whether she would ever consider dating across the political aisle.

“I have to say it’s probably not,” Ocasio-Cortez replied, before adding, “no foul to people who do.”

She then explained that, for her, politics comes down largely to values.

“I think a lot of politics sometimes, at least for me, is about values, and being aligned in values I think is tremendously important.”

Fair enough. In fact, I agree with her on that much.

Values matter enormously in a relationship, which is precisely why I suspect the feeling would be mutual among plenty of genuine conservatives.

AOC is certainly an attractive woman. Then she starts talking politics, and suddenly you are trapped in a conversation where every issue seems to become another lecture about capitalism, inequality, government programs, or whatever progressive crusade has taken center stage that week.

And that is the funny part of this entire exchange. The framing makes it sound as though conservative men are standing outside AOC’s door clutching flowers, desperately hoping she might overlook their unfortunate belief in limited government, individual responsibility and free enterprise.

AOC is absolutely entitled to date whoever she wants, and frankly, she probably should date somebody who shares her worldview. Relationships are difficult enough without turning breakfast into a congressional hearing over tax policy.

But there is something perfectly AOC about imagining this great ideological dating dilemma in the first place.

She can remain comfortably inside her progressive bubble, conservative men can remain comfortably outside it, and civilization somehow marches forward.

What do you think, could you seriously date or marry someone whose political values were almost completely opposite your own?

Source: TMZ interview with Charlie Cotton, reporting also cited by Breitbart News

The Federalist Papers

Y͏e͏s͏t͏e͏r͏d͏a͏y͏ ͏a͏t͏ ͏0͏8͏:͏1͏5͏·

I have to admit, this cartoon made me laugh.

Partly because it is funny on its own, Trump reaching past Canadian maple syrup for Mrs. Butterworth’s is exactly the kind of ridiculous visual a trade war practically begs for.

But it is even funnier after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s comments this week.

Asked about restarting trade negotiations with the United States, Carney said talks could resume when Americans “stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough,” and start getting serious.

Come on.

When memes have become one of your conditions for getting back to the negotiating table with your country’s most important trading partner, you may want to reconsider who is allowing emotion to drive the bus.

Carney absolutely has legitimate issues he wants resolved in these negotiations, particularly when it comes to Canada’s auto industry and sovereignty. That is his job. But turning presidential trolling into a diplomatic stumbling block strikes me as remarkably unserious.

Especially because Canada simply cannot replace the United States with China.

Carney has dramatically improved relations with Beijing. Canada and China reached a strategic partnership this year that reopened or improved Chinese market access for Canadian canola, seafood, beef and other products.

Good for Canada.

But look at the numbers.

In June, Canada exported about C$53.9 billion in goods to the United States. It exported about C$3.8 billion to China.

That is not even remotely the same relationship.

Even after a year of trade diversification, 71.7 percent of Canadian merchandise exports still went to the United States in 2025.

Carney knows this.

Trump knows it.

At some point the politics and chest-thumping have to end, because geography and economics are stubborn things.

Carney may not like the memes. He may hate them.

But eventually Canada is going to need to sit back down with the United States and make a deal.

Memes and all.

The Federalist Papers

Y͏e͏s͏t͏e͏r͏d͏a͏y͏ ͏a͏t͏ ͏0͏7͏:͏3͏1͏·

Corrie ten Boom once said, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.”

That is a beautiful quote, but it becomes far more powerful when you know the life behind it.

Corrie was a Dutch Christian who lived with her family in Haarlem, Netherlands, during the Nazi occupation. She and her family could have chosen safety. They could have minded their own business, kept quiet and hoped the evil around them passed by their door.

Instead, they chose courage.

The ten Boom family helped hide Jews and members of the Dutch resistance from the Nazis. A secret room was built behind a false wall in Corrie’s bedroom, and their home became part of a larger underground network that protected people marked for death.

Then, on February 28, 1944, the family was betrayed.

The Gestapo raided their home and arrested Corrie, her sister Betsie, their elderly father Casper and other members of the family. Six people were hiding in the secret room at the time. The Nazis searched the house, but they never found them.

Corrie’s father, who was 84 years old, died only days after his arrest.

Corrie and Betsie were eventually sent to Ravensbrück, one of Nazi Germany’s most infamous concentration camps for women. There they faced hunger, disease, cruelty, forced labor and the constant presence of death.

Yet even in that darkness, Corrie and Betsie clung to Christ. They prayed with other prisoners. They shared Scripture. They encouraged women who had every earthly reason to give up.

Then Betsie died in the camp.

Corrie was left to face the unknown without the sister who had walked through so much of it beside her. Less than two weeks later, Corrie was released from Ravensbrück and eventually made her way home.

What did she do after surviving that kind of evil?

She spent the rest of her life telling people about Jesus Christ, forgiveness and the faithfulness of God.

She even returned to Germany and personally forgave a former Ravensbrück guard who approached her after one of her sermons.

That is why her quote matters.

Corrie ten Boom was not speaking from comfort. She was not offering a cute religious slogan for easy times. She was speaking as a woman who had trusted God when the future was terrifying, when the cost was real and when tomorrow was completely unknown.

So when she says, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God,” she is not asking us to pretend life is easy.

She is reminding us that Jesus is faithful.

You may not know what is coming next. You may not know how the story ends. But you can know the One who holds tomorrow, and He has never failed those who put their trust in Him.

The Federalist Papers

Y͏e͏s͏t͏e͏r͏d͏a͏y͏ ͏a͏t͏ ͏0͏0͏:͏4͏5͏·

While this is obviously a joke there is also a kernel of truth here.

Ronald Reagan once joked that the problem with liberals is they know so much that isn't true.

That was in the 1980s and Democrats, while still living in fantasy land, were at least nominally sane.

Democrats of the 1980s could have told you what a woman is, and that men should not compete in women's sports. In the 1980s a man wearing a woman's dress was considered to be a nutjob. Men were men, women were women and things mostly worked.

Fast forward to 2026 and Democrats have all kinds of insane beliefs.

They cannot define what a woman is, believe in 86 genders, want abortion up until birth, a woman who strangled her kids is innocent because she was depressed, black people only go to jail for killing people because of white privilege, men should compete in women's sports including boxing, borders should be open and all of the illegals should have free healthcare, housing, cell phones, everything but jobs.

Sadly that is a very short list of all of the insane things Democrats now believe.

My mother and father were Democrats and they would be appalled at what the party has become.

So the meme is accurate.

1 out of 3 Democrat supporters are just as dumb as the other two.

Sad, but true.

What do you think, is the meme accurate?

The Federalist Papers

Y͏e͏s͏t͏e͏r͏d͏a͏y͏ ͏a͏t͏ ͏0͏0͏:͏0͏3͏·

They say a picture can be worth a thousand words and this is one of those times.

With socialism, everything is free but you.

With socialism you'll get free food. You might wait 6 or 7 hours before you get your daily handful of moldy potatoes but at least it will be free.

With socialism you get free housing. Sure it will be a mold filled slum with a radiator that barely works in the winter and no air conditioning in the summer. There will be mice and roaches but at least it's free.

With socialism you'll also get free healthcare. It might take six months to see a doctor, and depending on your condition, the doctor might recommend assisted suicide, bet hey, it's free!

That said, should you speak out against the government or your poor conditions then you may not even get that.

History is very clear on this. Socialism, wherever it has been tried leads to equality, equal sharing of misery for everyone but the ruling class.

Do you think AOC, El Sayed, Bernie Sanders or any of their DSA pals expects to live like the masses should they succeed in bring socialism to the USA?

The question answers itself. We will be standing in breadlines while Mamdani, AOC, and Bernie eat steak and lobster at one of their many homes.

So if Socialism wins, everything will be free but you.

Just ask the people in England and Germany who are getting arrested for posting incorrect thoughts on social media.

Why do so many in this country want socialism when its record of failure is crystal clear?