Smearing Socialism and the Economic Implications

I am a poorly educated Southern United States Citizen, but I have had some college economics. It seems that many here see socialism as the great evil that communism has been painted as. And while that is true when it is brought to extremes there is a place for some socialized goods in the western world. Social goods are goods that are best produced by the government. My economics professor used damns and police protection as a good example. These are social goods and services. They are needed by the whole community and it is unfair to ask one person to pay for it out when everyone will profit from it. Public goods have their place in society and socialist policies ensure these goods. I am all for as free of a market as is healthy, but some things must be socialized to ensure a healthy community. Charity and good will cannot be guaranteed to provide these things and that is one of the roles of government. An absolute free market is like absolute communism. Sounds good on paper and is disasterous in action.

 

Private security as an industry has experienced massive growth over the last 5 decades.

 

Does the federal government have any legal standing or logical argument to provide local services like river maintenance and police? What sense is there to take local money and send it halfway across the continent just to send it back where it came from? None, unless you're one of the politicians in that loop.

I take it your professors prefer their federal funding to the constitution. That's fine, just change the document if you really think that local services should be provided by a top-down federal entity (like the USSR did it). Federal socialism is a direct violation of the 10th amendment, but its the "good intention" that keeps an essentially illegal government in power. I object to federal socialism for the same reasons I object to censorship, gun regulation, or illegal domestic spying - they are legally off-limit activities for the federal government.

The alternative to federal socialism is not capitalist anarchy, it is a contractual legal framework respecting the sovereignty of the states and the inherent freedom of the American people. It wouldn't be such a tough choice if not for leftist propaganda equating a lack of centralization with total chaos. Surprise surprise, this anti-federal approach is more in line with the way the E.U. operates - states setting social services and a largely ineffective federal government that only maintains free trade & immigration among the states.

By the way, which industry or social service is better off under direct federal regulation? Social security? No Child Left Behind? Iraq? Where is the proof that federal spending & regulation improves anything...?

 

My professor actually didn't get into the politics. The argument for the government to social goods is that all of us free riders are gonna come live in the town where you have paid for the damn and the security and free load off you. Are you going to live in your fort and pretend that the rampant crime doesn't effect you and are you going to build a flood wall around your house and watch your neighbors drown and pretend that doesn't effect you either? If 10 houses next to you all pay the security firm and you do not won't you still benefit from it as a free loader? Yes you will.

 

So if that town is so great, everyone will move there, property values will go up, and they'll have a rich little city.

But see, they know this won't work because in the real world people and business opportunities gravitate toward places with lower taxes. Nominal income is higher in blue states due to inflation, but employment and home ownership are higher in red states.

 

Socialism, IMO, is immoral. The rights or votes of the majority, do not supersede my rights as an individual.

Name them.

Ok, this is just funny. The government doesn't produce anything efficiently, quickly or fairly.

Yes, it is unfair to demand one person pay for it, if it is of value to the many. Which is what socialism is. You demand that the people who work or earn, pay for the things which everyone will use.

In a capitalistic society, the damn will be built for profit, or by charity. One person can decide to pay for the service that everyone enjoys, they can even be lobbied by their fellow citizens to bear the cost, but it is voluntary. No one can make a law, saying that you have to pay for a "social good" or go to jail, face legal consequences. That's coercion, basically legalized theft.

How?

There are no guarantees in life. We have welfare in the US, and yet there are still millions of poor. We have public education, and yet our educational results continue to slide globally.

I do not believe that the center is the only safe place, and that both "extremes" are bad. Socialism and capitalism are not compatible. You can't have a free market, if the government is going to compete with private enterprise. You can't compete with big business, if government protects them with regulatory processes and procedures.

 

Hrm, morality is a tough issue when it comes to economics. Money doesn't seem to value morals.

Military, security, fire fighters, basic infrastructures such as sewage and water treatment. That's just a few I think fit the bill.

Open to debate. The government does not generally preform as well as the free market but in some cases it is the best option for providing a good or service.

Ok, so you don't like income tax. There are other ways to pay for these goods. Other ways to tax. But taxation is necessary.

Those laws are made. Either way, why would company A build the damn for company B and C when it could just as easily wait for one of them to build it? Or perhaps B and C agree to build it but after the job is done C refuses to pay up. Economically they would all be better off moving to higher ground. Charity is all well and good but it cannot be counted on and engineers don't work for free.

Welfare and federal education standards are flawed systems. Welfare does not provide a social good, it provides handouts. Federal education programs pretty much boil down to a punishment and reward system. But pointing out the failed social programs doesn't prove that there is no place for social services or goods. It just proves we elect politicians not economists.

Their has to be some oversight to the market to prevent monopolies and the like. I do not think we have that oversight yet either though. All my local utilities are monopolies. I agree that the government should protect individuals and not corporations as if they where citizens. But there are still services and goods best provided by a government. I prefer local government to federal because it gives a wider choice to the citizen but still it is government control. Do you think private business is going to pave every road in your town or just the ones that lead to its warehouses and factories?

 

So vote libertarian in the national elections and liberal in your state/local elections

I know it sounds like pure crazy on the surface, but its the only way to accomplish increased efficiency in necessary public services like education and infrastructure. Every federal social program has turned into a huge mess and that's only partly because they are constitutionally illegal.

Nothing in the constitution, however, prevents California from instituting its own health-care policy. It works because there is also nothing stopping people from leaving CA if they don't like it.

 

Nonsense. Money is the vector by which consumers cast moral votes in the marketplace.

Sewage and water treatment could not be privatized? What about fire fighters? There are volunteer fire departments. A military is slightly different, in that I believe the role of government is to protect liberty, and maintaining civil defense could fall under that. As could law enforcement.

Please name them and explain why they are the best option.

I can agree with this, to a degree. I certainly don't endorse a progressive income tax system.

Economically they would all be better off moving to higher ground, unless there was some economic or social incentive to building the dam. Precisely, and thank you for making an excellent point.

You are right that charity cannot be counted on, but you can count on some things. Such as volunteers. People will not starve rather than hunt, in the absence of grocery stores or restaurants. Charity, donations and voluntary participation produces open source software all of the time. There is no reason to believe that such grassroots efforts are not capable of tackling social problems. After all, MADD and PETA are not government agencies, but nonetheless provide social value.

Our politicians hire and politicize economists. FED Chairman Bernanke (IIRC) has a PhD from Princeton. The reality is, the free market is the collective desire of thousands, millions and billions of consumers. No one, or 100 economists can plan an economy, any more than we can plan the future of your life, or that of your children. Humans are finite beings operating in a universe of infinite possibilities.

There is no need to freak out over monopolies. People claimed Microsoft was a monopoly. That didn't stop LAMP from becoming the default web server software suite, or Firefox from grabbing a substantial amount of market share, or numerous and varied Linux distros from emerging and taking hold.

The key is to have low barriers to entry. If a single company operates in a service or industry, and they are able to keep competitors out by pricing ridiculously low, then that is a benefit to consumer. Remember, competition isn't desirable to satisfy a condition of competition. Competition provides value to consumers. If consumers can realize value from a company who aggressively maintains market share with superior product, superb service and low, low prices, than that benefits the consumer. In fact, if a competitor enters the marketplace, the original monopoly may have to raise prices to maintain revenue and profit levels, with a reduced customer base.

The marketplace is self policing, as long as contract law and individual liberty is maintained. Consumers will vote with their feet.

Well, a private business would be wise to pave the roads from the employees homes to their factories. And the roads out of town so they can ship goods to the next town. And roads to the bank so they can deposit and withdraw money. And roads to the schools, because the executives want their kids to get an education. And the roads to the malls, shops and customers so that people will buy their goods.

Yeah, local is better than Federal. It is a lot easier to harass your Mayor at church or at the mall than it is to confront the President.

 

While the DP P&R forum has a lot of libertarians, it is a minority view within the US. People of all stripes seem to maintain some libertarian values, but the majority within the US mitigate those itemized perspectives on some issues with a healthy balance of individual perspectives versus a sense of the common good.

Having been a commercial real estate broker, which is extremely capitalistic, and started and/or bought and built 4 businesses with colleagues I'm pretty entrepreneurial.

Still I see lots of good in govt protections of the great population.

The federal investment in highways essentially turned the US into a huge production machine that spurred enormous growth and prosperity throughout the nation and enabled many remote areas to dramatically grow and flourish. Public education is in my mind, the great benefit of America, creating a free base line education system for all and being the underpinning of opportunity for all regardless of background. With all its difficulties and problems it is an incredible opportunity machine.

Pricing users in a region for the construction of a dam is a tricky issue. Alternatively if the dam creates a fertile and productive region that contributes nationwide it is an incredible value to the nation as a whole. The cost of such an endeavor is incredibly small when spread among a nation, but the benefits to the whole that a thriving region provide is infinitely valuable.

The libertarian view in the extreme has basically never established itself in a large or thriving nation. Were it to take precedence it would lead to dominance by the strong and wealthy and subserviance by the weak and poor without protections. Its a cruel idea. But then again since it hasn't been developed anywhere it is a pipedream.

 

Earl, I understand repetition as a tool to reinforce, but no matter how many times you post the same inaccurate statements, that won't make it true.

Reagan ran on a libertarian platform.

The US practiced libertarianism all the way up until the Great Depression. That's over 100 years, and saw a tremendous amount of growth and prosperity. It's like your ridiculous statements refuting a gold standard, when historically, gold has always outlasted paper money, and if today's credit and global inflationary crisis is any indicator, gold might yet win again.

You're also purposely spreading falsehoods about the lack of "protections", the typical liberal dogma of equating capitalism with lawlessness, and then equating capitalism to cruelty. Libertarianism holds law, and the rights of the individual in super high regard. In no way does it place special interests or collective rights above the rights of each and every individual in the society.

That said, no real entrepreneur I know, would ever consider capitalism cruelty, and then try to pass off his business experience as a credential of expertise.

What happened in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries was cruelty. People either worked, or went to slave camps. There was no upward mobility, but there was public education. You had two classes, the wealthy/political elite, and everyone else.

You continue to call public education "free", but that is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. Nothing is free. It may be free to those who use it, but someone, somewhere is bearing the cost.

But like most statists, you don't like to talk about who bears the cost, and how it may adversely affect them. They are the faceless victims you will never speak up for.

But then, what could you say, as you gorge yourself at the trough of social goods provided and paid for by others. I doubt you lift your eyes up to see if it is day or night as you feed yourself as rapidly as possible.

 

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

-Winston Churchill

 

It isn't that government doesn't have a function in society because it does, the issue steams to how big of a part government should do. Do you really want government controlling the means of production? Because if you do, history has shown us that the results have been disastrous.

 

A country without socialism would simply be the wild wild west of the old days. Chaos and struggle that would beget unspeakable evil doings by individuals to survive or in some cases, more than just survive.

Like it or not, it is an irrefutable fact that socialism is necessary on at least some levels.

Anyone against socialism absolutely without exception, is for moving backwards not forwards.

 

I'm not sure I understand. Vices are luxury items, but we all make a budget for luxury and the market for things that are taboo is not really a free market if you consider the effort expended toward it in social goods like fines and court costs as a tax.

Drinkable water is not something I would trust a corporation to, but it is a local government issue, in my state it is pretty much by county and in some counties the water is not drinkable and in others it is fine. Volunteer fire fighters are great, but training and funds should be provided by the government, as well as pay if needed. Fires spread.

If it was all so complicated we wouldn't have anything to study. Politicized economists are fine, as long as they are honest.

Computer technology is still an emerging market in many ways, it is not really easy to say how big Microsoft could get or what it might really be worth.

People lie. We need government oversight.

No, they would buy tire companies.

 

This is exactly why libertarianism has attracted me. The rights and freedom of the INDIVIDUAL.
very well put guerilla.

 

I see logical arguments for local public services like roads and police, but how does this argument favor federal socialism? Even admitting that some government must provide some social services, why should it be conducted at the federal level (unconstitutionally)?

No liberal or Democrat I've met can answer that one.

 

Let's see how students A and B do in two different systems:

In a constitutional republic, student A works hard and gets a 90 grade on his test. Student B works very little and scores a 50. Student A will tend to remain motivated, will outshine student B, will get the good jobs and good pay, and he/she will continue to be a productive, contributing citizen.

In a socialist system, student A gets his 90 score on the course, and student B gets his 50. The socialist professor takes 20 points from A and gives them to B, making them equal with a 70 grade each. What motivations will result? —
• (1) Former high-achieving student A now says, "Why bother working hard and diligently? They'll just take away what I work hard for and give it to some slacker."
• (2) Slacker student B will now have even less motivation to work hard. He will say, "Hey, why work? I'll just get extra points from the other guy's work."
This is how socialism removes everyone's motivation to work hard and get ahead.

 

And capitalists are supposed to be the fear mongers.

Can you name one level upon which it is irrefutably required?

Historically, that is not true. The advances of mankind are not tied to collectivism, they are tied to individual liberty and freewill.

 

Jim, I find myself disagreeing with you nearly 50% of the time, but you are so dead on right with your description of socialism, that I had to let you know how great I think it is.

No one has the right, the authority to take an achievement (physical or not) from one person, and give it to someone else.

It can be freely given, but not taken by democratic vote, or threat of violence (incarceration).