Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

If there is one thing Socialists are good at (besides spending other people's money) it is co-opting a concept. After all, why go through all the hard work of coming up with a good idea when you can simply steal one?

There is no better means of appropriating something that is not yours than through the State—any sufficiently large government whether local, state or national.

From the beginning, socialist doctrine has consisted of taking an established, accepted concept and hijacking it for its own use. Take early socialist "ideas" such as universal social benefits. Prior to government programs the extended family was the primary source of support for those who fell ill or lacked employment. Various charities and private organizations helped with these issues, but the family was where you would turn to first. Socialism promotes the State above all else, though, and anywhere an institution like the family or private enterprise flourished the State must move in and take over.

That kind of reasoning gained some supporters during the periodic recessions of the 19th and early 20th centuries. People put out of jobs our homes through "no fault of their own" thought it nice if someone (else) contributed to their recovery. What happened to the extended family? A couple of societal changes occurred that made the family a harder resource to use in tough times. First of all, the industrial revolution caused a mass migration to the cities. Many families that before existed in either the same or neighboring communities now found themselves spread across the nation or even across the world as Europe populated the New World. In addition, people who lived in cities depended upon others for food. It was no longer simply a matter of making your own food go further, or accepting family members to help out on the farm when they lost a job. Now a lost job meant you and your family could go hungry.

The job of socialists, therefore, was to play on the fears of workers with pictures of homeless and hungry families without anywhere to turn. Never mind that there were private organizations still helping people, or that friends and neighbors could help out when family was not nearby...simply rely on the all-powerful State to take care of you. They had the power to take a "little" money from those with "more than they needed" and provide relief to those who did!

Fortunately during the last half of the 20th century people eventually came to realize that this "good intention" simply masked a movement for greater power and control over society by socialists, and not for "the good of all" as was promised. As living standards increased more and more people found themselves in the class of people who had "more than they needed". Indeed, the rise of conservatism in the 1950s and 60s and libertarianism in the 1960s and 70s was a response to the ever-increasing size and intrusiveness of government.

By the 1990s, socialists realized that something had to be done. They were losing too much support and too many people to concepts like libertarianism—the government which governs least, governs best. People realized that with lower taxes there was less of a need for an alphabet-soup of government relief programs. With lower taxes family and friends could help each other out when times got tough, and who better to decide how that dollar of relief was spent than those contributing it?

So now the socialists are trying to turn in their liberal coverings for new ones: libertarianism.

Admittedly, it is a hard sell. After all, most people (correctly) assign minimal government to the libertarian movement. So, what is a good socialist to do? First: water down the definition of libertarianism. The past few years have seen noted socialists like Noam Chomsky start referring to themselves as "left-libertarians". Eh? Isn't that kind of like screwing for virginity or fighting for peace? Sure, but the socialists have A Plan.

The plan is to demonize a pillar of libertarianism—private property—in the same way that private institutions were demonized over the past two centuries. Do you want a nice home with a view? Sorry, you cannot get one! All the "good" land is already owned! Would you settle for just a nice house? Sorry, you cannot get one! All the "good" homes are already owned, and those evil private homeowners refuse to sell for a "reasonable" price, which allows evil homebuilders to increase the cost of a new home to unreasonable levels! The Socialists will then argue that the State will ride to your rescue by owning all property "on your behalf" and you can have that nice home with a view. (Never mind that the same problem of too many people wanting the same nice house with a view will still exist, you can trust the State to make sure the "right" people get it.)

I predict that the socialists will not win this battle. Too many people own property, or a business, or realize that turning in their car for a bus pass is not a winning scenario for them. The time for banishing private property passed when the middle class grew to be the largest segment of society. It is no longer an "us versus them" proposition, but one of the owners versus those who want to take it from them.

Still, there is a way socialists could win this battle: if good people do nothing to contest the takeover of the libertarian label. If you see a "news" source using the term "left-libertarian" or some other agency promoting the label be sure to protest early and often. Once the label has been diluted, the socialists will be free to sell their snake oil under a new, respected label.

There is no better means of appropriating something that is not yours than through the State—any sufficiently large government whether local, state or national.

The job of socialists, therefore, was to play on the fears of workers with pictures of homeless and hungry families without anywhere to turn.

...the rise of conservatism in the 1950s and 60s and libertarianism in the 1960s and 70s was a response to the ever-increasing size and intrusiveness of government.

The plan is to demonize a pillar of libertarianism—private property....