Historically, murderous ideologies like those of Mao and Stalin gained traction by hiding behind benevolent promises ('free stuff'). This benign messaging makes them more deceptively dangerous than overtly aggressive ideologies like Nazism, which clearly signal their malevolence and are thus easier for the public to identify and reject.

Both ideological extremes, left unchecked, concentrate power and lead to authoritarianism. Unfettered capitalism creates a corporate 'king' who controls all resources, while socialism creates a state dictator. Both systems ultimately subvert individual freedom without proper checks.

The ideology of collectivism, when put into practice, inevitably leads to the non-voluntary seizure of assets from productive individuals because successful people will not willingly surrender their gains, necessitating force.

Top-down mandates from authorities have a history of being flawed, from the food pyramid to the FDA's stance on opioids. True progress emerges not from command-and-control edicts but from a decentralized system that allows for thousands of experiments. Protecting the freedom for most to fail is what allows a few breakthrough ideas to succeed and benefit everyone.

Pre-modern societies, including the U.S. founders, based legal and social structures on "natural law"—an understanding of inherent human nature. The modern left's rejection of this concept leads to policies that ignore reality, such as denying innate human tendencies like greed, which ultimately fail.

Love is a powerful motivator within families and small groups. However, at a societal scale, it fails. A society that expects love to scale, like communism, inevitably resorts to force when that expectation is not met. Money, via markets, is the only scalable, non-coercive alternative.

Socialism's top-down control ignores market incentives, leading to predictable failure (e.g., rent control causing building decay). When people protest these failures, proponents who believe they "know better" must resort to coercion and violence to silence dissent and maintain power, rather than admit their model is flawed.

Command economies inevitably rely on force. In a free society, disagreement is resolved through persuasion. In an authoritarian system where directives are absolute, dissent is ultimately met with force. Adopting a top-down economic model means accepting state-sanctioned violence as a necessary tool.

Systems built on violence and coercion, such as authoritarian rule or forced taxation, are fundamentally unstable. They incentivize participants to constantly seek ways to escape, betray, or overthrow the system, creating a repeating cycle of conflict rather than sustainable social coherence.