Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Anſwer to the recurring queſtion. "What is wrong with Socialiſm?"

Socialism on its face has very laudable goals. However, the theory ignores what we know about natural law, and presupposes, to loosely borrow from those smarter than I, that men are angels. It assumes that those who are capable and have found success redirect some major portion of the fruits of their labor to support those who have not yet found success. It also assumes that those who have not found success are doing their earnest best to make sacrifices, make good decisions, and work toward success (eg contribute meaningfully to the economy/whole). The success of socialism depends on a near uniform acceptance of these principals, and positive action to follow. Natural law for dummies, states that men are not angels, and while many do not, many act only in their own self interest of either greed or laziness; either of which spells an end to uniform socialism, at least in the voluntary state. So a “voluntary society” based in socialism is unobtainable, at least for now for the flaws in mankind. The fact that Utopia is still out of reach for our own imperfections should not be a surprise.

Enter involuntary socialism, or government mandated socialism. The simple premise of which is, government, who acts based on coercion by force over the governed, now forces the above two principals to be followed if not believed. This vests a large amount of power with those who have shown repeatedly not to be angels and act repeatedly not in the interests of those governed but in the interest of consolidating their own power. The result is invariably (shown with numerous historical examples of any socialistic enterprise that has substantial size that had to cope with diversity of thought) a very large tax burden on enterprise or government control of the means of production, and a loss of liberty of the underclass. Class mobility becomes nonexistent, the underclass, now non-responsible, revert to a more childlike mentality with government as a parent, industry stagnates beneath taxes and regulation or the bureaucracy of government control, and overall economic conditions worsen. The usual result of which is further government intervention to control education, civilian activity and industry. The means define but three paths for socialism to follow.

  1. Dissenting opinion is eliminated; all thought is homogenized behind the socialistic ideal through “education” campaigns that ignore the validity of any contravening philosophy.
  2. Population and industry are largely or completely controlled by government.
  3. Utter economic failure.

One and two constitute and end to freedom as we know it. Three is just a disaster. So while “socialism” is not a bad idea per se. Government mandated socialism is a disaster for a free society. With those overlooking who were so brave as to say “give me liberty or give me death” can we not struggle through economic crisis without begging our government to take our freedom?