This post is a response to the question "Do you think that the idea of 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' is an appropriate or inappropriate way of governance?" posed by 
The idea of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" is an attractive concept at first. It would reduce poverty and would seemingly create a happier, safer society. If one were to truly ponder this concept and simply look at history, they would realize the dangers that come along with the government taking from the rich to give to the poor. Imagine someone is poor and the government takes some money from the rich to give to this person and the person is able to use this money to work their way up the economic ladder, only to have it taken from them to give to other people, thus thrusting them back into poverty. This is a torturous cycle that benefits no one, the government included. This will cause resentment in every citizen because the cycle is inescapable. An example of the resentment that socialism leads to is demonstrated in Great Britain after World War II. The leaders drifted towards socialism after the toll World War II took on them, thinking it would advance the country. They quickly found it hindered the country after the economy suffered, and the British people did not hesitate to elect "politicians who believed in free enterprise and turned things around." (Gordon) Not every country gets so lucky when it comes to recovering from socialism. Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez implemented governmental control after encouragement from Cuba, thinking it would assist growth. However, they ran out of many resources and caused a national downfall. Unfortunately, the Venezuelan economy still hasn't recovered, but shows the incredible risk that comes with a governmental attempt at socialism. In conclusion, the idea of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" has good intentions, but is immensely detrimental to a community.
