Why Socialism Cannot Work.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Socialism cannot work. But some socialist programs (such as Social Security) within the context of a capitalist society greatly improve our lives, and we would be worse off as a society and individuals without them.[/quote]

There is a big problem with social security. Too many do not feel they need to save for retirement because of it, and when you truly look at it, it is nothing but a Ponzi scheme.

Attempts to correct this quickly get blasted down solely for political benefit.

Truly for it to work a certain number of people have to die before receiving any benefits. Any system that benefits because its members die cannot be good.

62

So, you are saying socialism works, since it improves our lives and makes us better off both as a society and as individuals?

63

[quote]vroom wrote:
Socialism cannot work. But some socialist programs (such as Social Security) within the context of a capitalist society greatly improve our lives, and we would be worse off as a society and individuals without them.

So, you are saying socialism works, since it improves our lives and makes us better off both as a society and as individuals?[/quote]

You are assuming that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive

64

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Socialism cannot work. But some socialist programs (such as Social Security) within the context of a capitalist society greatly improve our lives, and we would be worse off as a society and individuals without them.

So, you are saying socialism works, since it improves our lives and makes us better off both as a society and as individuals?

You are assuming that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive[/quote]

They are.

Unless you mean top-down socialism, but that would not make any sense in this thread at all. Top-down socialism works quite well, and its plausibility in not disputable (argue about its desirability all you want, though).

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

They are more equitable – every person starves; except the brutes who foisted such things on innocents. It is for those brutes that God, my God, created a Hell.

[/quote]

Some are more equal than others LOL

66

…look no further than the German economy: high unemployment, negligible growth, no opportunity, scarce capital flushed down the toilet to pay for social entitlements,…all the result of decades of socialism taking hold…, and this is what the liberal Democrats in the U.S. want to emulate…

67

An excellent story about Germany.

We (the US) often benefit from the stupidity or barbarism of others. Remember Tienammen Square, Beijing 1989? 40,000 Chinese students stayed in the US, becoming engineers, scientists, etc. The same thing happened with German Jews in the 1930’s.

68

Do they really?

Is that their election platform? Let’s create entitlements, slow growth, cause high unemployment and otherwise make the economy suffer?

Don’t look now, but the Bush regime has done a good job of raising entitlements and expenditures on its own.

To be a compassionate society we simply must find ways to provide aid that do not cause dependence or the creation of entitlement. What those ways are I don’t yet know, but it is vital that we figure out how to do so.

69

[quote]vroom wrote:

Do they really?

Is that their election platform? Let’s create entitlements, slow growth, cause high unemployment and otherwise make the economy suffer?[/quote]

Yup![quote]

Don’t look now, but the Bush regime has done a good job of raising entitlements and expenditures on its own.[/quote]

Yup!

Yup!

70

I wish people who advocate entitlements and support programs would realize what this entails. They require the creation of a bureaucracy that will find ever increasing reasons to sustain its own existence. The innocent little entitlement program becomes a huge federal monster. Why do we think our federal government has gotten so huge?

It is for this this reason that I am against Socialism. Managing the economy to help the poor MUST evolve into some sort of Fascism. The welfare state soon becomes a state that is looking out for its own welfare.

Does this seem an unreasonable line of thinking?

71

Headhunter,

I think the point I am trying to make, which you don’t seem to accept, is that there are ways to offer help to citizens without creating entitlements or even a huge and growing bureaucracy.

At the same time, some items, such as national defence, international relations, and so on, are simply never going to be eliminated, as they are a good idea. While they aren’t programs to help the poor, they are in fact government administered bureaucracies that are here permanently.

Why complain only about bureaucracies that are focused on performing internal social activities?

It seems to me that you have reached a conclusion and are looking for ways to support it.

What I would suggest, is that realistic ways to improve the economy, through finding ways to integrate more people that are current less successful, could increase the tax base enough to fund such initiatives. Especially if such initiatives were not huge bureaucratic disincentive programs such as created in the past.

If you are going to claim that such and such CANNOT work, you are going to have to work a little harder to make your case, then just tossing out statements that assert your own conclusion.

72

Vroom,

Good reply (and thanks for restraining the insults).

When you say there are other ways to help the less fortunate, I agree. Get the government off their backs. When an employer has to fill out miles of red tape forms, or pay outrageous taxes, that hurts the poor. The wealthy might have to cut an employee to pay taxes. An employer can’t give a pay raise if they are taxed out of this money. If it’s a pain in the ass to hire someone, he won’t.

I believe that the proper functions of a government are: (1) national defense (2) internal justice.

BTW:If extremely intelligient, profit-driven capitalists can’t manage an economy, what makes us think that some bureaucrat can do better?

But my main criticism of Socialism is in the realm of political philosophy. Create a large government and someone will figure out how to abuse it. Think of every invention you can – it didn’t take long for someone to figure out how to abuse it. Invent an airplane and they’ll soon be strafing each other. Invent cell phones and they’ll soon make roadside bombs triggered by same.

But government power is just too overwhelming! Want to live in the old Soviet Union, or in Nazi Germany? That’s where a welfare state/socialist country must evolve. Someone will figure it out.

73

I couldnt agree more headhunter. My main problem with giving the federal gov’t more power (whether that be economic or political) is the inherent potential for abuse. If someone were to argue that individual states should provide a larger social net, while I wouldn’t vote for it in my state, I wouldn’t have as much a problem with it because the effects of such a program (both negative and positive) would be localized.

Washington said of government that “like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” I think that is unquestionably true and that is the reason why I’d take absolute liberty, with all of it’s flaws and uncertainties, over the promise of absolute security (economic in this case) and the threat of tyranny that must accompany such a promise.

74

I don’t see why people are so stuck in the mindsets of the past.

The government can do things, other than create bureaucracy to offer help or assistance, even if only to make the right kinds of information available online.

Ideas that integrate into the existing market systems, in particular, are not going to be risky in any major way, in that power does not have to be concentrated in anyones hands.

Putting power into the hands of government is different than using resources to empower those citizens that decide to temporarily borrow or use those resources.

There are ways to give people assistance without offering entitlements and disincentives.

Finally, and I don’t see why nobody seems to catch on to this one, especially during the current period of federal government corruption, why not shrink the level of government power?

There is no reason that the people can’t run as or vote for candidates that talk about the concerns being raised in this thread, and that we can’t vote for them. If these are serious problems, put your money where your mouth is and get the system set up to minimize the concentration of power, remove systems that create disincentives and so on.

If everyone sees the same problems, it isn’t hard to vote for the person that has a good solution to the issue. However, you might have to focus on something other than the war on terror for a short while…

75

In answer to your question, Vroom, I quote Alexis de Tocqueville:

“The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

And Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler:

“A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”

76

Libertarian,

You are admitting defeat without even bothering to fight over it. Sit back, make some popcorn, and watch things go to hell in a handbasket. Is that the plan?

Perhaps, instead, some oratory skills could be used to rally principled people to take a stand against ridiculous government practices.

77

[quote]vroom wrote:
Libertarian,

You are admitting defeat without even bothering to fight over it. Sit back, make some popcorn, and watch things go to hell in a handbasket. Is that the plan?

Perhaps, instead, some oratory skills could be used to rally principled people to take a stand against ridiculous government practices.[/quote]

You’re probably right vroom: I have grown too pessimistic (at the ripe old age of 22 no less!). But still, the two quotes I posted illustrate an important point. That is, as long as it is politically advantages to do so, politicians will continue to bribe the public with it’s own money.

It’s intersting that in the quote I posted yesterday, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, writting some 200 years ago, wasn’t speaking of America or any other modern state; rather, he was speaking of the fall of the Athenian Republic.

Sadly, I believe history is repeating itself. Tytler went on to say that, “[t]he average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” Looks like we are 30 years past due…

78

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
You’re probably right vroom: I have grown too pessimistic (at the ripe old age of 22 no less!). But still, the two quotes I posted illustrate an important point. That is, as long as it is politically advantages to do so, politicians will continue to bribe the public with it’s own money.

It’s intersting that in the quote I posted yesterday, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, writting some 200 years ago, wasn’t speaking of America or any other modern state; rather, he was speaking of the fall of the Athenian Republic.

Sadly, I believe history is repeating itself. Tytler went on to say that, “[t]he average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” Looks like we are 30 years past due…[/quote]

People that recognize the problem can influence whether or not people can vote themselves money from public coffers.

The problem with the quotes is the assumption that the coffers are simply open for plundering.

Remember the concept of balanced budgets? The public understands that the government can’t simply pile up debt and place it on the backs of future generations.

That concern can be brought back to the forefront, again, if we can focus on something other than our deathly fear of terrorism.

One of the prices of freedom is risk…

79

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
In answer to your question, Vroom, I quote Alexis de Tocqueville:

“The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

And Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler:

“A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”

[/quote]

We’ve got another soaring words thread! :slight_smile:

80

[quote]vroom wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
You’re probably right vroom: I have grown too pessimistic (at the ripe old age of 22 no less!). But still, the two quotes I posted illustrate an important point. That is, as long as it is politically advantages to do so, politicians will continue to bribe the public with it’s own money.

It’s intersting that in the quote I posted yesterday, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, writting some 200 years ago, wasn’t speaking of America or any other modern state; rather, he was speaking of the fall of the Athenian Republic.

Sadly, I believe history is repeating itself. Tytler went on to say that, “[t]he average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” Looks like we are 30 years past due…

People that recognize the problem can influence whether or not people can vote themselves money from public coffers.

The problem with the quotes is the assumption that the coffers are simply open for plundering.[/quote]

So long as individuals opposed to the wellfare state are branded as anti-poor, uncaring “right-wingers,” there is little hope for real debate on the topic and without debate, little hope for change.

One hundred years ago people didnt look to government to solve their problems. Today, after nearly 100 years under an ever increasing maternalistic state, people have come to depend on government and that’s not an easy thing to change.

It may very well be that what we are experiencing is just the natural cycle of democracy…inevitably crushed under the weight of a “loose fiscal policy.” Or, as Tytler puts it:

“from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage.”

I think our Founder’s recognized this flaw in democracy and tried to rectify it via a written Constitution; however, they failed to fully appreciate mankind’s ability to ignore the limitations it dislikes while simultaneously augmenting the powers it does like.

[quote]
Remember the concept of balanced budgets? The public understands that the government can’t simply pile up debt and place it on the backs of future generations.[/quote]

True, but thats not really what’s at issue here. Just because a nation has the ability to pay for something doesnt mean it ought to.

[quote]
That concern can be brought back to the forefront, again, if we can focus on something other than our deathly fear of terrorism.[/quote]

Very true.

[quote]
One of the prices of freedom is risk…[/quote]

Unquestionably true…the risk of failer and/or poverty included of course.