As Dr. Koo renews her call for the abolition of capitalism in favor of her beloved socialism, I can’t help but wonder why she has chosen to remain in this country which is very unlikely to convert to the collective socialist society she craves, especially since there are so many worldwide examples of failed socialist societies where she would receive a much larger audience for her totalitarian message.

Americans were, by and large, reared with that time-honored tradition that you are entitled to what you earn instead of being entitled to take what someone else has earned. That system has been proven to be feckless and unsuccessful in virtually all the places where it has been installed, and even communist countries such as Russia and China have been largely converted to capitalist economies because they were failing under the socialist model.

What inveterate socialists uniformly misunderstand is that the removal of the incentive to create wealth eventually causes a country’s economy to fail since its citizens are no longer motivated to work hard, to create businesses, to invent innovative solutions or devices, to strive to succeed or to pass those qualities on to their children.

Citizens of these countries are granted the means to live simply because they are citizens, and how could that inspire anyone to expend any real effort to take care of themselves or their families? That means that eventually there is not much left to take from people to give to others.

Dr. Koo’s apparently obvious animosity toward capitalism leads her to blame that system for most of the world’s ills in ways that are very imaginative but always wrong, and I’ll give you a couple of examples.

She contends that capitalism has caused the United States to be an imperialistic nation and to engage in “colonial domination, continued economic imperialism and hegemonic political bullying.” Perhaps she will give some actual examples of these oppressive activities engaged in by America.

It seems to me that we have in actuality been engaged in saving ourselves as well as the better part of mankind from the tyranny of real oppressors. She also contends that our “system of policing serves mainly to protect corporate profiteering.”

Gee, I always thought policing was instituted to protect the citizenry from criminals and enforce the duly enacted laws.

In the final analysis, it is unlikely that Dr. Koo and I will ever agree on anything. You may soon be required to pick your own side.

Paul Duffy

Rocky Mount