[Thanks to Ian]
This is a bit blunt, but clear.Also, people tend to not realize that the progressive taxation used in most countries is akin to socialism.
====
An economics professor made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. --------- "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." ~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 ~~~~
Solidarity is cool with me, but "redistribution of wealth" is an euphemism that makes me cringe.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me get out of bed in the morning is the illusion that if I try hard enough, I'll be able to accumulate money now so I'll have to work less later. Take that away and I'll stay in my bed thankyouverymuch.
I'm no fan of Thatcher, but I do like this quote of her:
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
-- Margaret Thatcher
That professor should have been fired for being a complete moron and not knowing the subject he was supposed to be teaching. Anyone who is persuaded by this pathetic attempt is an imbecile.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me get out of bed in the morning is the illusion that if I try hard enough, I'll be able to accumulate money now so I'll have to work less later. Take that away and I'll stay in my bed thankyouverymuch.
ReplyDeleteAre you retarded? Socialism isn't communism you know. No, obviously you don't know. You're an idiot. I really can't see how you do manage to get out of bed in the morning.
While I wouldn't want to see America become like one of those "nanny states" in Europe - Denmark or England for example - some socialist ideas aren't necessarily evil. Univeral healthcare is one. I wouldn't mind that. I wouldn't mind paying for it. There have been few times I've been out of work in my life, but if I'd been injured I wouldn't have had insurance. Also, isn't the idea of welfare socialist? Yet most countries have that. Because despite the relative few who abuse it, it's better for the rest of us to have it exist.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI live in Belgium, where the glorious Socialist Party just proposed a wealth tax.
According to Wikipedia: "Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The professor was simply giving the students what they asked for. He taught them, which is what his job entails. You shouldn't fire someone for doing his job just because the reality is different than you would like.
ReplyDeleteSocialism always fails each time it is tried and whatever euphemism is used for it. And socialists almost always get nasty, rude, and insulting when this is pointed out.
It is as predictable as the phases of the moon.
Socialism indeed always fails.
ReplyDeleteBut it's made to look more appealing with the heroin of the media.
Socialism always fails each time it is tried and whatever euphemism is used for it.
ReplyDeleteSocialist ideas are at work in many countries today, and they are doing just fine. You are thinking of communism. That has never worked, it's true. That must be what you meant. Now, libertarianism, that is something would be an even greater disaster than communism. I'm sure no one here is stupid enough to ever believe in that.
Socialism is failing in America even as its proponents deny its failure. And, yes, communism usually fails faster than other forms of socialism, but only because it is concentrated socialism rather than dilute socilaism. Communism is simply socialism taken to its absurd conclusion.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism, on the other hand always works, whether it is a personal philosophy or on a larger scale. It's only "shortcoming" is that its proponents know it is wrong to kill people for refusing to live by principles of voluntarism, unless they are actively attacking you right now. Socialism in whatever form has no such "ethical difficulties".
As libertarians we would not try to stop you from living in whatever way you wish. If you want to have a full-blown communist enclave it is your business and your life. The problem with socialists (or collectivism of any type) is that the same respect is not extended to others. Everyone must be forced to go along with what the Rulers have established, no matter if it violates our principles and no matter who is harmed. I recognize that as wrong.
What is it you want most from life? Can you get it without hurting other people? What is stopping you? What would allow you to acheive it? In what sort of society would you be most likely to achieve that which you want most?
Absolute Socialism is just as insane as absolute deregulation.
ReplyDeleteYou can´t let people exploit other people with a system that allows a boss to become a millionaire by paying peanuts to thousands of hard-working laborers earning HIM all the profits.
And you cannot leave merit unrewarded.
My problem is when those hogging all the "rewards" (translate: money) present it as evidence of their "merit". (It´s called "social Darwinism".) By this logic, a cutthroat murderer is most "meritant".
We cannot either leave those who do poorly completely to themselves. The immediate consequence to this selfishness and suppression of solidarity would be the end of all the handicapped, and many of the old, sick, young...
SOME portion of socialism is a good thing. If everybody were ensured that they won´t starve, or freeze in the streets, or croak from lack of some Penicillin, but anything above the strict base necessities demanded work (such as eating more than bread and tofu, having a somehow comfortable house, plastic surgery to remove ugly scars, etc...), I bet we wouldn´t witness stuff such as a whole class flunking, or a whole country crumbling.
This professor just demonstrated the absurdity of ABSOLUTE Socialism. (I don´t think this is in disagreement with Kent´s position...)
The USSR demonstrated the hypocrisy of ACTUAL Socialism, with those in charge "more equal than the others"...
I agree with Dave: absolute Libertarianism, which seems no different to me than "everybody to himself, unless you regroup for a transient common interest", would just be a different style of social nightmare.
Everything in moderation, and always use common sense.
Right, Josie?
"As libertarians we would not try to stop you from living in whatever way you wish."
Tell me something, please: in this scheme of things, how would a child be protected from being secretly abused at home?
Too much non-interference in "other people´s business" is easily proven to lead to horrors as well.
Unless you tell me that "this is an absurd extreme of the Libertarian doctrin, which nobody sane and honest would advocate".
But Socialism -or Communism, whatever- is just the same.
The Socialist revolution in Russia was a predictable response to the Nobility hogging all the wealth and exploiting the hard and meritant work of the majority.
A predictable, understandable, yet excessive response.
"the same respect is not extended to others"
This has nothing to do with Socialism. It´s a classic trait of narrow minds who cannot tolerate any other thought but their own. You see just the same in religious fanaticism... or in the way America "brings Democracy to other countries".
Democracy led to Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip today. And to Hitler gaining absolute power yesterday. He was democratically elected...
Absolute freedom is just as bad as absolute "order".
All animals living in an organized society have rules that must be followed.
One of these rules, is that "we all stick together". Nobody is abandoned when they meet a hardship.
I´d say an unemployed person getting sick or injured is an excellent example of the Group having a sacred moral duty to solidarity.
Even if you call it by such "ugly" names as Socialism.
SOME reasonable, moderate and sensible amount of collectivism is not only okay, it´s NECESSARY.
[Cont´d]
No offense, Kent, I´m convinced you´re really a swell guy with the best of intentions, but trusting any one principle to solve all the problems is just as much of a mistake as relinquishing all your freedoms for a corrupt nanny State to abuse. Neither extremes can ever work.
ReplyDeleteAlas, it seems to be in human nature, to always respond to one extreme by the opposite extreme as a countering force. Such as fundamentalist "morals" to prevent the dramas of divorce and shattered families.
All extremes are wrong.
Well... almost all!
(Let´s not be extremist about THAT either. ;-)
If we accept the initial hypothesis of a God of Good having created the Universe, this planet and us, then it is evident that He let us manage from the start in a completely Libertarian manner.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, the poor overall state of the world today is perfect proof of the flawed nature of ABSOLUTE Libertarianism in its results.
Still, I'm positive that a reasoned amount is a good thing. Like glucose causing diabetes, only excess is harmful. :-)
Makes me lean toward the hypothesis of "evil created by Free Will". A side effect of a most valuable God-given freedom...
But we need to prove worthy of it by getting wiser, and fast, otherwise it will destroy us all.
Pascal, you rascal, you have inspired the longest blog comment response I have ever written. I also believe you to be a decent person. That is why I don't believe you really support socialism when you get right down to it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway...Here goes:
"a cutthroat murderer is most 'meritant'."
Absolutely not because he violates the one real rule of life: Do not attack anyone.
"We cannot either leave those who do poorly completely to themselves."
And no libertarians I know of would advocate that. Instead, what we claim is that it is wrong to take, against their will, from those who do well, or those who just scrape by, in order to take care of those who do poorly. It is not "generous" when you are giving away other people's money. Charity is generous; welfare is "receiving stolen property".
Socialism is the opposite of compassion. Any amount is wrong. It teaches the wrong lesson and it degrades those who "benefit" in a way that charity, real compassion, never does. I have reached into my own pockets, even when I really couldn't afford to do so, to help people in need. I am not better than anyone else. Charity filled the gaps before welfare, and did just fine. By removing the option to live on welfare, charity would once again fill the needs (not necessarily the "wants") With charity a recipient either needs to be a decent person in actual need, or a good scammer. Either way it is harder to just live off the kindness of others while being a bad person. Even the ability to scam people into helping you is a marketable skill. But you'd better not get caught or your system may collapse around you. I know from personal observation that getting caught doesn't end welfare handouts.
"Everyone for himself" is actually the only system that really works, consistently, in real life. It sounds bad, but it isn't. Everyone acts in their own self-interest even if they claim to be living for others. Some people value the feelings they get from helping others. Some people want to avoid feeling bad. Some people think it is in their self-interest to keep the Sky Ghost from judging them as a bad person for not helping. Most people don't go around robbing and killing because they know it might work well in the short term, but it isn't a smart long-term choice. Either they will get caught by the government (and put on welfare in a cage for a while) or they will run across a self-responsible person who will end the career of the aggressor with justifiable violence. I know of no one personally who needs the presence of The State to force them to behave toward others. I certainly wouldn't become a mugger, rapist, or murderer if The State suddenly vanished. And I seriously doubt you would either.
To be cont'd...
Cont'd...
ReplyDelete"in this scheme of things, how would a child be protected from being secretly abused at home?"
The same way as happens now. If it is truly "secret" there is no protection, not under government and not in a free society. If it becomes known, then most libertarians would intervene. No one has a right to initiate force ("abuse") anyone for any reason. It doesn't matter if the attacker says it is no one's business or not. When a person becomes aware of an innocent person being attacked they have the right to intervene in the situation with whatever amount of force is necessary to save the victim. However, if it turns out the situation was misinterpreted there is no "official office" to hide behind. The "rescuer" would be personally responsible and accountable for his actions if he made a mistake. I know of people who have had their lives ruined by false accusations with no repercussions for the officials who made the mistake. There must be accountability.
"It´s a classic trait of narrow minds who cannot tolerate any other thought but their own. You see just the same in religious fanaticism... "
However, setting up a government, where no one can "opt out" without leaving their home, friends, and family is a recipe for turning this problem of narrow minds into tyranny and death. If you allow the structure to exist and give the problem a framework to use "officially" this is almost an inevitable result.
"All animals living in an organized society have rules that must be followed"
Right. But rules do not need Rulers. Rules naturally evolve from the bottom up, and should never be imposed from the top down. Libertarianism is not a rejection of rules, but of all those rules that are not based on reality. The core principle is the Zero Aggression Principle, which is a rule.
"I´d say an unemployed person getting sick or injured is an excellent example of the Group having a sacred moral duty to solidarity"
But "groups" can not have a moral duty or anything else. Only individuals can. If you know someone who needs your help, it is YOUR duty to help. To claim it is "the group's duty" is a way of relieving yourself of your responsibility. It is "someone else's job". It is not your duty to demand that people who do not know this person hand over a percentage of their property in order to help support this person. That, once again, is the difference between welfare and charity. One is good, the other is not.
"SOME reasonable, moderate and sensible amount of collectivism is not only okay, it´s NECESSARY"
No, if it is imposed or coerced, rather than fully voluntary, it is evil and evil is never necessary. All the supposed benefits of collectivism can be gained without using theft.
Liberty is not extreme, but is natural. The only people who see liberty as an "extreme" are those who don't trust theselves without a nanny watching over them. Or, those who have must vested interest in keeping their hands in the pockets and lives of those around them. That is extreme.