Socialism

[Homer]

I wonder why the Canadian Hutterites have not come from out of the oppressive Canadian government that steals their money, and forces them to share their wealth with non-Hutterites, and move to United States with the others?

Could it be that they receive more in benefits provided by socialism than they pay in taxes? I'm afraid we are nearing the tipping point in the US where the majority gets more than they pay into the system and then will continually vote for politicians who will provide them even more.

[steve]

Actually, while I can't speak for Hutterites, I know that tens of thousands of Canadian Mennonites have relocated to Bolivia to avoid oppressive government policies. I learned this during a visit to Bolivia in 2002.

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Every democratic government of whatever stripe "imposes" their policies on the unwilling.

Exactly, which is why I followed that sentence with this one: “Since democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority over the minority, it is incumbent on a moral people to force only such conditions upon society as do not deprive any minority group of their legitimate rights to property, life or freedom.”

You wrote:

Democracies are elected by the people, and so they satisfy a greater proportion of the people than autocracies or oligarchies…

This is not a given. A wise and just monarch may be very much better for a society than is an immoral and oppressive majority of voters. The former may actually choose to preserve individual rights of all citizens, while the latter may deny them.

…but of course there will be some who are dissatisfied by the decisions. What better is a capitalist democracy in this regard?

The only thing better about a capitalist democracy over a socialist one is the precise point I have been discussing. The former does not steal from citizens; the latter does. I am not arguing that there is some form of government that eliminates all dissatisfaction. I am arguing that a system should be preferred that eliminates injustice.

You quote me, and then respond:

Since democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority over the minority, it is incumbent on a moral people to force only such conditions upon society as do not deprive any minority group of their legitimate rights to property, life or freedom.

And who does that? Do you not have a seat belt law in United States? I happen to believe that I am safer not wearing a seat belt.

It would seem that you are making this a debate about who has the better country. Your comment above serves no purpose in the argument, other than to say, “Your country is no better than mine!” That is not my concern. I am not flag-waving here. I am discussing ethics in governments and economics. I also am opposed to mandatory seat belt laws.

You wrote:

Isn't my right to "life" or at least to "freedom" removed by imposing the seat belt law on me?

Absolutely.

You wrote:

So tell me what society does not deprive minorities of their rights to freedom?

I don’t know. Probably none. But that is irrelevant to the topic of ethics. Two-hundred years ago, one could have similarly asked, “So what society does not allow black slavery?” The answer would have been “None!” But how would that advance the discussion of ethics?

You wrote:

As for rights to property, if your state intends to run a highway in a particular location, where are the rights of the property owner whose property lies in the path of the proposed highway? The rights that are lost are supposedly for a greater good—a necessary highway. It reminds me of your position that God allows excruciating suffering for a greater good.

I find no equivalence between God’s prerogatives and those of the State. Your statement seems to indicate we disagree about this. I see God as the owner of everything—including all people—and the State as the owner of nothing.

On the other hand, there might be cases where the interests of law enforcement or of the national defense require the State to tread upon, or even to seize, private property. These interests are the legitimate province of State. However, if such were to become unavoidable, the property owner should be properly compensated for the loss. In that case, he retains the value of his property and the State avoids being a thief.

You quote me, and respond:

If I could persuade the majority of American voters to invade Canada, rob its banks, and give the plunder to Christian missions, this would not be ethical—however much I may approve of Christian missions, and however large a majority may have been persuaded to vote for my proposal. Democratic decisions decide government policies—but they do not decide Christian morality.

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Either you are simply unable to answer the point (which I think probable), or you are unaware of what the “question at hand” is (which is not impossible). You seem to think the issue here is whether Canada is a better or worse country than the USA. If that were being debated, then my comment would truly be irrelevant. However, you may not have grasped that we are talking about governmental ethics, in the abstract, not evaluating how well or poorly any particular country measures up.

The point is that persuading a majority of people to confiscate the property of others does not result in justice—no matter how large the majority may be, and no matter how admirable the cause. Your inability to see the relevance of my illustration concerns me.

You wrote:

Do you call income tax a means of "forcing" people to share? Don't you have income taxes in United States? Does this not "force" you to share with the less wealthy?

I am surprised that you still think this is a discussion about who has the better country. You sound like you are defending your country, rather than biblical ethics. Talk about irrelevant arguments! What does it help to say, “The United States also has similar programs”? I do not use the policies of the USA as a standard for determining norms. Nor am I defending the USA.

There is an income tax here, yes. But it is unconstitutional. The country did not have such a tax prior to the American Civil War. It was widely recognized as unconstitutional until the passage of the 16th Amendment, in 1913. The passage of this amendment did not change the ethical issues. It simply made unilateral confiscation by the government legal.

You wrote:

I see socialized methods of more equal distribution of wealth, no deterrent at all to giving to the needy. Some have a mind to give in every democratic society, and many have a mind not to do so. Whether or not it is done is unrelated to the society's political or economic system.

Not so. Any money that is stolen from private citizens ceases to be at their discretion to give, to save, or to spend. If the government takes 25% of a man’s income, that is a sizable portion of his expendable assets which he will have no ability to give to worthy causes. Will the government give that money to worthy causes? There are no guarantees of that—and there is a guarantee that they will not be efficient in stewarding it.

You quote me, and respond:

By contrast, voting for socialism involves no Christian virtue, and is motivated, in many cases by covetousness and resentment toward the productive rich.

"The productive rich" That kind of thinking is deception. The rich often control monopolies that take away incentive from small businesses. American capitalism tends to continuously move the capital from the less wealthy to the wealthy through monopolies...But in democratic socialist countries, it is much more difficult to become filthy rich.

Your mockery of the term “productive rich” tells me that you have drunk the socialist Kool-Aid. You seem to be denying that hard work can produce honest wealth.

My former father-in-law was a multimillionaire. He had only a high-school education, but was an inventive genius, and his inventions made him rich. He lived at a lower-middle-class standard of living and gave all that he earned to Haitian orphans and missionaries. His employees were treated with respect and generosity. If a single mother applied for a job, and he had none available, he created a new job to employ her. One of his employees, a poor black gentleman, had an unattractive under-bite. My father-in-law paid, out of his own pocket, to have this corrected, at considerable expense.

My father-in-law was not “filthy rich.” He was simply “rich.” There were men richer than him, but had he been a billionaire, instead of merely a multimillionaire, he still would not be “filthy rich.” Who are you to call "unclean" what Christ has cleansed? If there were more rich men like him, and less government waste, I believe there would be far more good done for the poor than is presently the case.

There are many other productive rich men, like my father-in-law. J.C. Penny was very wealthy, and gave 90% of his income to charities. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers are other excellent examples of men that you would call "filthy rich," but who give more to charity than the combined giving of a thousand middle class benefactors. I have heard of many similar cases. Not all wealth is generated through exploitation, nor spent selfishly. The fact that you are unaware of this means that socialist propaganda has clouded your judgment.

In a free-enterprise society, people can steward what they earn. Many are not good stewards—but there is hardly a worse steward than the federal government (who else could go into such irresponsible debt!). In a free market, some produce more than others, and consequently earn more than others. In such a society, no one is prevented from earning (and taking home) the value of his services.

Those who become billionaires may do so justly or unjustly. I am personally no fan of Trump, but I have not heard any reports of his getting rich through crime or through cheating others. If he had done so, I am sure the media would be all over it. I think his employees have mostly spoken very highly of him as an employer.

I do not envy or covet any man’s wealth. If he has earned it, then, according to Jesus, it is legally and righteously his to distribute (Matt.20:15). If a person becomes rich through crime and injustice, that is another matter, and irrelevant to the respective values of the economic systems we are considering. Crimes should be punished by the State—whether committed by the rich or the poor (Ex.23:3, 6).

You wrote:

For example, in United States in 2015, there were 536 billionaires (U.S.D.) and in Canada there were 39. Of course, the U.S. is 10 times as populous. So if Canada were less socialist and were more like United States, one would expect about 54 billionaires (U.S.D) in Canada. Darned socialist country is robbing the rich! What a shame!

If the rich are being robbed, do you not believe this to be a shame? At what point, biblically, does a person have enough money to justify his being robbed? Can you give me the figures?

You wrote:

But who need a billion U.S. dollars anyway?

Not I. However, if I could make that much, there would be a very large number of poor people relieved who are not relieved today. The ethical question is not “Who needs a billion?” but rather, “If someone actually earns a billion, whose right it is to distribute his lawfully gained assets?”

You quote me, and respond:

A vote for socialist policies is not a way of saying, "I, as a productive citizen, am willing to be generous toward the less-productive members of society," but rather, "I, as a voter who thinks he knows what everyone should do with their own money, am going to require, by law, that those who have different stewardship priorities from my own will be made to support the agendas that I choose."

And how do you know all of that? Are you an expert in socialism? Or are you simply parroting the anti-socialist sentiments to which you have been subjected in United States?

It is in the definition. Socialism means taking the money of one person, giving it to the government, and allowing the government to redistribute it according to its own priorities, not those of the earner. I am surprised that you, who live in a socialist country, did not know the definition of the word.

You quote me, and respond:

There is no reason to vote for socialistic policies, other than to enable the government to confiscate for redistribution the resources of the unwilling—a segment of the population that could easily represent nearly half the citizenry. Grand theft committed by the majority of citizens is as immoral as is that done by an individual burglar. It is simply more frightening and irresistible.

Congratulations! I believe your sentiments have a solid basis in unreality. Where is this "unwilling segment of the population that could be even half of Canadians? There are plenty of Canadian visitors to United States. I suggest you question them, and find out for yourself whether half of them dissatisfied and who consider the Canadian political system to be engaging in "grand theft."

There you go again! Defending Canada instead of the Kingdom of God. I am not attacking Canada, but socialist policies. If Canada has adopted those policies, the worse for them. If the USA adopts such policies, the worse for us. My statement stands unrefuted and irrefutable—which you would see more clearly if you would stop making this a discussion of nationalism.

If you are responding to the words "more frightening" as my lapse into unreality, it may simply be that those in socialist countries have already lost so many freedoms (and become adjusted to it) that there is nothing more for them to fear from the government. I am speaking from the standpoint of one not currently in such a system, but seeing it encroaching. I personally have no fears about my finances, but I do fear for the freedoms my children and grandchildren are about to lose.

You quote me, and respond:

Once the confiscated money is in the hands of government, there are no guarantees that its redistribution will be done efficiently (without excessive salaries to administrators) nor to the recipients who are the most deserving, from the standpoint of Christian morals.

Doesn't the same hold the funds taxed by any government, including that of United States?

Yes.

You wrote:

Does your government properly used the money it "confiscates" from the people through taxation? And the same with state governments?

I agree with you, and I object to it. But can we get off this kick of comparing the USA and Canada? I am against injustice in the USA as much as in Canada. It is that which is practiced here that concerns me most directly, because this is where I live.

You wrote:

We both agree that much of the money taxed by our governments is used for immoral principles and/or for continuing a particular unhealthy life style. But what can we do about it? It's the direction that modern society is taking. No matter whom we vote in, this trend is likely to continue.

Sadly true. But the fact that Germany drifted, seemingly irresistibly, to national socialism after the Weimar Republic did not lead Christians to say that Hitler’s policies were moral. Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed that wrong should be opposed, even if it had become thoroughly institutionalized. I don’t believe everything Bonhoeffer believed, but I agree that government evil is not beyond the criticism of the Christian. It sounds as if you do not share this conviction.

You quote me, and respond:

People who say they trust the government to be more wise and good than the general citizenry, in the redistribution of wealth, are more gullible than any other class of men.

I don't know any people who say that. But let's face it: the general citizenry isn't assisting the poor, except for a very small percentage of them.

Your second sentence contradicts your first. You are in fact implying that socialism is better because the government will take care of the poor better than will private-sector donors. Yet you claim to know no one who believes this? You are the man.

But how do you know that the general citizenry isn't assisting the poor? Your experience is in a socialist country, so you do not know what goes on in countries that eschew socialism, and allow free men to distribute their honest wealth. In a socialist country, the government is expected to care for the poor. No doubt this does put a damper on the charitable giving of private parties. Why should they sacrifice to do what the government has pledged itself to do? This is, in fact, one of my complaints about socialism.

You quote me, and respond:

After all, what is "the government" other than ordinary citizens—most of them lawyers—who, through deception and back-room deals have slimed their way into positions of power? What a lovely lot to trust! Has there been any experience in your life that would persuade you that lawyers, as a class, are the most selfless and honest members of the general population? If not, what is the sense of handing-off our stewardship responsibilities to them?

Aren't we getting a little off topic here? The government has somehow morphed into unscrupulous lawyers.

When was it anything else? My point is entirely relevant to my thesis. You don't recognize this because you have not yet realized that we are not arguing the question of which of us lives in the better country. They are all bad. That's my point.

You wrote:

Also, I don't think I have advocated trusting socialist governments. I was merely pointing out that the Canadian government does assist needy people as well as ordinary middle-class families. I have been a teacher for 30 years, and I have been assisted in various ways. Just recently we travelled 220 miles to Winnipeg for medical appointments and were able to receive travel grants to assist us in our travelling expenses. Is that all bad? Does it take advantage of the "productive rich"?

Of course it does. Whose money funded that grant? Wasn’t it the taxes of the productive citizens? If there had been no such grant available, are you sure there would have been no Christians who would have given you that assistance? You’ll never know.

You respond to my earlier response:

Paidion: But people can leave the democratic, socialist countries, too, if they are dissatisfied. Not many do, since not many are dissatisfied.

Steve: Have you ever tried to do this?

Paidion: Why would I try to leave Canada? It's a great country! I am happy to live here. My first wife, and many other Canadians (including some of those from other countries who have become Canadians) consider Canada to be the best country in the world.

In other words, your statement that people can repatriate to another country is based on no experience or research of your own. On what basis, then, do you speak of it as a viable option for anyone who is being oppressed?

You quote me, and respond:

The Hutterites, whom you mentioned, were originally driven from Europe.

Correct. And now all of the world's Hutterites are located in United States and Canada: 25% in United States and 75% in Canada. They do quite a bit of visiting back and forth. I wonder why the Canadian Hutterites have not come from out of the oppressive Canadian government that steals their money, and forces them to share their wealth with non-Hutterites, and move to United States with the others?

This question seems to again exhibit your lack of awareness of how difficult it is for many to repatriate—especially in large numbers, and at the forfeiture of their lands. Though, interestingly, as noted, many Mennonites have done so. Perhaps the Hutterites are more willing than the Mennonites were to compromise their principles in order to stay put.

You quote me, and respond:

You are right. Some North Americans, to avoid such injustices, may have to relocate to countries further south, east or west—but why should they have to do this? Are democratic nations supposed to drive out and expatriate dissenting minorities?

Do you know why a sizable number of Conservative Canadian Mennonites moved to Mexico? The Kleinegemeinde, Sommerfelder, and I think the Rheinlander also. It was mainly because the Canadian school systems forced them to do their schooling in English. Well, in Mexico, they experienced far more oppression than in Canada, mostly from bandits and corrupt police. So those groups returned to Canada, and now seem satisfied. I wonder why they didn't move to United States, "the land of the free," instead? They didn't want the bandits of Mexico but presently seem okay with the "grand theft" of Canada.

You have made my point for me, thank you! If my thesis had been: “Canada is bad; USA and Mexico are good,” then your paragraph would have disproved my point. But this is not a point I would ever endeavor to defend. Unlike yourself (apparently) I am able to set aside all considerations of nationalism and top examine ethics from a disinterested Christian point of view.

Here is how your illustration makes my point: Mennonites left Canada to escape the socialistic school system, which prevented them from educating their children as they would have preferred. In other words, their parental rights were violated by state oppression. It is you, not I, who argued that these people could simply leave their country and find a better place. You have just illustrated that this is not really an option for many. Another country may be worse than their own. Why should their own country oppress them and force them into even worse circumstances?

[Paidion]

Either you are simply unable to answer the point (which I think probable), or you are unaware of what the “question at hand” is (which is not impossible). You seem to think the issue here is whether Canada is a better or worse country than the USA. If that were being debated, then my comment would truly be irrelevant. However, you may not have grasped that we are talking about governmental ethics, in the abstract, not evaluating how well or poorly any particular country measures up.

You have mistaken what I consider to be the essence of the debate. Never did I suggest it was about which country was better. From the beginning I was arguing that Socialism is not what you perceive it to be—forced robbery from the rich. You also seemed to be arguing that Capitalist democracy is superior to Socialist democracy—a notion that I was also attempting to oppose.

There are a number of other matters also, in which I think you have misunderstood the points I was attempting to make. However, I wish to take this no further. I recognize that you think the U.S.A. is also robbing the "productive rich", but not to such a great extent because of its Capitalist governmental actions, and thus it is recognizing personal freedoms to a greater extent than Canada. Again, I am not suggesting that the debate is about which is the superior country, but about whether or not Capitalism recognizes freedoms to a greater extent that Socialism, and also which system benefits needy people more.

As for Socialist countries taxing its citizens 25% of their income, so that they don't have enough left to give to the needy, I thought I would check our income tax payable as a percentage of our total income in 2015. I have never done this before. I had to do this as a couple because our income and income tax are so inextricably linked. Our total taxable income included the socialist benefits we receive such as Old Age Pension and Canada Pension Plan. Anyway, I found that our tax payable was less than 3.4% of our total income. That's a long ways from 25% (but perhaps your 25% guess includes "hidden taxes" and not merely income tax). In any case, can you tell me how 3.4% of total income taxed, compares with that of a capitalist country?

I was a teacher for 30 years and am now receiving retirement pay plus Canada benefits. I am considered to be middle class as far as income goes. So wherein is the robbery? Perhaps you would say that only the very wealthy are being robbed in order to benefit the lower and middle classes. I am unqualified to comment on that perception.

In any case, if you think the Capitalist system is better, I leave you to it. In my opinion, those who need surgeries and other such medical treatment, are going broke in a system that does not provide socialized health care. I know I would now be in deep financial trouble if I had been required to pay for my wife's hip replacements, and my own necessary surgeries. I thank God that I live in a socialist country where such needs are met by society.

I think some people think of socialism as a milder form of communism. Far from it! Communist claims to be democratic (the Democratic People's Republic, etc.) is a deception. In other truly socialist countries such as Canada, the claim is a reality.

Morally, I would be considered right wing. I am as opposed to killing pre-born children for convenience as you. I think I am also as opposed to the legalization of recreational drugs as you. But when it comes to providing for the needs of people who cannot meet their own, I favour governmental programs for assistance. I recognize that some people attempt to take unnecessary advantage of these programs, but there are rules and procedures in place that minimize any success in that area.

As for the very rich giving huge amounts to charities, I recognize that this is true. But even if a multi-billionaire gives away 90% of his money, he still has enough left to permit heavy spending for several life times. So I don't see this heavy giving of the rich as justification for permitting some people to accumulate such immense sums. You suggest that many of them got rich through ingenious inventions. Well and good. But how many of them got rich by doing nothing—just collecting vast amounts of interest from the money they receive from their billionaire parents? Taxing away some of that unnecessary money in order to provide social programs seems to me to be a morally sound way of putting it to excellent use. The exceedingly rich don't need it. Indeed, I wonder if the incentive for some of them in giving away so much, is to avoid paying as much income tax. They think their charities (many of which do not help the needy) are more important than government programs. I'm not sure that this is the reality.

Thank you, Steve, for engaging me in this discussion. Your thoughts have been a challenge. I leave it to you to have the last word, if you wish to comment on any of the above.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

The people of Canada, though their experience have continued to desire socialized health care ... nor has any Canadian requested that socialized health care be discontinued. ... Where is this "unwilling segment of the population that could be even half of Canadians?

Do you believe it is necessary that participation in the health care system of Canada continue to be compulsorary for both consumers and providers of medical services? If Canadians desire this system so much, then it should work equally well if offered on a voluntary basis (like purchasing an insurance policy). But if compulsory participation is necessary, then it can only be because there are certain individuals who would chose not to participate in the absence of the requirement to do so. This would demonstrate that this program is not universally approved of.

The democratic, socialist countries can change from socialism by voting in a non-socialist government. But how many do? I know of none. What does that tell you about the level of dissatisfaction?

It tells very little - see above. It shows nothing more than that the majority of men desire to decide how other people's money is spent.

Every democratic government of whatever stripe "imposes" their policies on the unwilling. Democracies are elected by the people, and so they satisfy a greater proportion of the people than autocracies or oligarchies, but of course there will be some who are dissatisfied by the decisions. What better is a capitalist democracy in this regard?

You have a quite favorable view of democratic goverment. I do not. There is a very short article called the "Tale of the Slave" by Robert Nozick. How would you answer the question he poses at the end of this article? What is better about one government system than another is that the amount of impositions the government makes may be more or less. That is to say, the control of resources may be either left to the individuals who homestead and produced those resources (capitalism), or they are confiscated from productive people for use by the State on behalf of those who are unproductive (socialism). This is clear difference which makes capitalism superior.

Peter

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

I don't care what the Canada tax rates are, since I oppose confiscatory governmental redistribution on a conscience basis. However, my estimate of how much Canadians pay was based upon the Canada Revenue Agency's website, where the figures are given as:

Federal tax rates for 2016
15% on the first $45,282 of taxable income, +
20.5% on the next $45,281 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $45,282 up to $90,563), +
26% on the next $49,825 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $90,563 up to $140,388), +
29% on the next $59,612 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $140,388 up to $200,000), +
33% of taxable income over $200,000.

Most of my friends would fall into the 20.5% or 26% bracket. I don't see the 3.5% bracket listed.

You wrote:

As for the very rich giving huge amounts to charities, I recognize that this is true. But even if a multi-billionaire gives away 90% of his money, he still has enough left to permit heavy spending for several life times. So I don't see this heavy giving of the rich as justification for permitting some people to accumulate such immense sums.

I don't know (and might not approve of) what the average billionaire does with his excess funds—but it is none of my business. I don't know why you think it is your business either. You and I did not earn their assets, nor should you or I have anything to say about what he does with what is his own.

What if some Canadians poorer than yourself were to decide that your farm is more than you need, and would demand, over your protests, that you must divide it up into equal parts with 50 indigent drug addicts? Would you not feel that this was injustice?

The government did not earn the billionaire's billions, and has no right to seize it—unless he gained it through crime. The fact that he may have inherited it without working for it simply means that his parents' earnings were passed on to their offspring, apparently, according to their wishes. Whose wishes should trump theirs about what they wish to leave for their children? In principle, how is their situation different from your father leaving you the land you live on? You could, if necessary, live on less.

Taxing away some of that unnecessary money in order to provide social programs seems to me to be a morally sound way of putting it to excellent use. The exceedingly rich don't need it.

Does the government have a right, in your view, to decide how much of your legally-acquired property you do not "need"? What business is it of theirs? Let them earn their own money and give it to whomever they choose. They have no right to steal yours, simply because they think your standard of living could be reasonably reduced.

Indeed, I wonder if the incentive for some of them in giving away so much, is to avoid paying as much income tax. They think their charities (many of which do not help the needy) are more important than government programs. I'm not sure that this is the reality.

We do not give burglars a pass because they felt that the motives of their victims were selfish. What could be more selfish than the burglar's motives? I have refused government handouts (though I have always qualified for them) on the grounds that I am quite sure that many who underwrote those benefits were taxed under compulsion. I live on the charity of others—but only on voluntary charity. Involuntary charity is an oxymoron, and does not exist.

[Paidion]

Hi Steve,

True to what I said, you have had the last word.

Notwithstanding, I think it is only fair to point out that the percentages that you obtained from Revenue Canada, are percentages of TAXABLE income. There is a great deal of difference between TOTAL income and TAXABLE income. Taxable income is computed from total income after various credits and deductions are applied.

The percentage I gave you in our personal case, was a percentage of our total income. I thought that percentage was more applicable since I think you suggested that the high taxation rate in Canada tended to prevent Canadians from giving to charities and/or the poor. However, it is our total income that is available to us for such purposes, and not merely our taxable income.

[steve]

Thanks for the clarification. However, my statement about socialism inhibiting charity did not mention Canada, in particular. Socialism, in principle, is what I was talking about.

[Paidion]

Okay. Looking back at your post, I see that you were not talking about Canada in particular. But I presume it included Canada, and since I have only Canada as an example of taxation in a socialist country, and since I was defending socialist programs in Canada, I undertook to show that for the middle-class Canadians, income tax is much less than 25% of one's total income, indeed is less than 3.4% in my case.

[dwight92070]

A person who refuses to wear a seat belt endangers those who do, because in an accident, the one who is not belted becomes a "missile" and often slams into those who are belted.