You get ahead now days through favors, kick-backs, and political connections more than ever. Sure we have been heading towards where we are now for quite some time, but it is now reaching critical mass...
In the book Atlas Shrugged we see that the businesses that survive are the ones that seek favors and special treatment from the government as all others are driven out of business through regulations, penalties, and political collusion. This is really where we are now. There are many stark examples today- Obamacare is a huge one. Over 1000 waivers have been given to protect politically connected companies and unions from the negative financial impacts of this legislation. There is no clear process to how the waivers are granted, and one has to ask the question- If it is the right thing to do for some, why is it not the right thing to do for all?
"Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion-when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing-when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors-when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you-when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice-you may know that your society is doomed." (Atlas Shrugged)
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Thoughts on Socialism
After watching a video of Christine O’Donnell (when she was running for the senate in Delaware) talk about the reaction she has gotten by many people when she told them that we are now a socialist economy and they answered with “what is the problem with that,” I had to put together some of my thoughts on the subject…
From a broad view- socialism is inherently wrong or immoral because it indiscriminately takes (by force) the property from some and uses that property at the whim of whatever current government leaders view as appropriate. It is most often termed re-distribution of wealth to try and reach the feelings of people and their idea of fairness. The following paragraph is a story paraphrased from a speech by Ezra Taft Benson.
There are a group of early pioneers in the west who spend a lot of time protecting their families and property from theft and destruction which they have every right to do, however, they cannot be very productive when they spend so much of their time protecting their property. As a result they get together and hire a sheriff to provide that protection of life and property, and government is born. These pioneers only have the right to delegate to the sheriff those things that they have a right to do themselves. Now if pioneer A wants another horse, but does not have the money to buy one, he cannot look to pioneer B who has an extra horse and demand that pioneer B give him that horse. Pioneer A also does not have the right to take the horse by force, nor can he expect the sheriff to take the horse for him (we can only delegate powers to the government that we have a right to do ourselves). Even if everyone in the community thinks that pioneer B should give pioneer A his extra horse, they have no right to demand it.The idea that it is OK to take pioneer B’s horse to give to someone else is socialism.
It is the idea that the government will take property from some by force to be re-distributed to others under the guise of fairness. In such a system, all freedom and liberty is lost because the government can, at any time, choose to take some or even all of your property. Your property then is never really yours…
Regan once said “some can’t look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin man.” This is a central theme to liberal socialism- that there is only so much wealth to go around, so those who are wealthy only got that way by taking advantage of the poor. This is a silly supposition, but it gets a lot of support because it is so easy for liberals to use it to try and create animosity between wealthy people and everyone else. If the liberals are successful in their attempts at class warfare then they can get a large group of the poor and middle class demanding that the government make the wealthy pay (…or hand over their horses). Regardless of how a person “feels” about the wealthy or any other group of people, remember, we can only delegate to the government what we have the right to do ourselves. Anything else is tyranny. We have no right to take by force the money or property from one group to give to another.
When living in a free market system it is not a zero sum game. There is not a pre-determined amount of wealth where the only way one person can have more is if another person has less. Under free market enterprise, everyone can rise, improve, and prosper according to each person’s ability.
The next step for socialism is the idea that just taking and re-distributing is not enough. Now we must work that “fairness” more by having the government own or run the major industries (think healthcare, auto, energy, and financial industries). The reasoning is that by the government running the majority of the economy we will be able to achieve more “fairness” or economic equality. This centralized type of economy is hugely inefficient and ineffective. Under a free market system, producers determine what products and services to produce based on what the consumers want, and when consumers want a lot of a certain product or service, producers will work hard to meet that demand. Under the centralized socialist economy, however, products and services are produced that bureaucrats determine are what is best for the people with very little to no regard for what people want (for example the government might push electric cars and windmills regardless whether anyone wants them or not). It quickly gets very condescending as the government expects the people or “the masses” to accept that the “benevolent” government somehow knows what is best for them and that “the masses” are not capable of determining what is best for themselves.
The examples of the failures of centralized economies abound. The early settlers of the United States provide a stark example. The settlers at Jamestown were to live in an economic system where the land that would be used to provide food for the survival of the community was centrally owned and all people were expected to take their turn working in the fields to provide for the community. The community would be a little utopia where everyone worked for the common good. The problem is that it was an utter disaster! Hundreds died from disease and starvation. The starvation was not because the crops failed, but because they did not get planted or that they did not get tended to once they were planted. It is nothing short of a miracle that Jamestown did not completely fail. When the Puritans came later, they tried to live the same economic system that was tried in Jamestown. If anyone in the world could be successful at living such an economic system it should be the Puritans who were very religious and believed sincerely that they should love and care for each other. They still suffered from starvation. While not the major catastrophe that was seen at Jamestown the conditions didn’t improve greatly until both communities decided to give people private property that they were free to do with as they pleased and anything that they grew on that land was theirs to use or trade as they saw fit. After they changed and allowed private property both communities started to prosper.
While all the preceding are my thoughts on socialism, here are some quotes from Ezra Taft Benson-
“The government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who created it.”
“Any attempt through governmental intervention to re-distribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.”
“The growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship, but let us hope that this time around the trend can be reversed.”
(And not a quote, but paraphrased) Three things needed to reverse this trend-
1. Historical knowledge of socialism’s failures in contrast with the benefits of free enterprise
2. Modern means of communication to transmit this knowledge to a large literate population
3. A growing number of dedicated men and women working to promote these concepts
From a broad view- socialism is inherently wrong or immoral because it indiscriminately takes (by force) the property from some and uses that property at the whim of whatever current government leaders view as appropriate. It is most often termed re-distribution of wealth to try and reach the feelings of people and their idea of fairness. The following paragraph is a story paraphrased from a speech by Ezra Taft Benson.
There are a group of early pioneers in the west who spend a lot of time protecting their families and property from theft and destruction which they have every right to do, however, they cannot be very productive when they spend so much of their time protecting their property. As a result they get together and hire a sheriff to provide that protection of life and property, and government is born. These pioneers only have the right to delegate to the sheriff those things that they have a right to do themselves. Now if pioneer A wants another horse, but does not have the money to buy one, he cannot look to pioneer B who has an extra horse and demand that pioneer B give him that horse. Pioneer A also does not have the right to take the horse by force, nor can he expect the sheriff to take the horse for him (we can only delegate powers to the government that we have a right to do ourselves). Even if everyone in the community thinks that pioneer B should give pioneer A his extra horse, they have no right to demand it.The idea that it is OK to take pioneer B’s horse to give to someone else is socialism.
It is the idea that the government will take property from some by force to be re-distributed to others under the guise of fairness. In such a system, all freedom and liberty is lost because the government can, at any time, choose to take some or even all of your property. Your property then is never really yours…
Regan once said “some can’t look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin man.” This is a central theme to liberal socialism- that there is only so much wealth to go around, so those who are wealthy only got that way by taking advantage of the poor. This is a silly supposition, but it gets a lot of support because it is so easy for liberals to use it to try and create animosity between wealthy people and everyone else. If the liberals are successful in their attempts at class warfare then they can get a large group of the poor and middle class demanding that the government make the wealthy pay (…or hand over their horses). Regardless of how a person “feels” about the wealthy or any other group of people, remember, we can only delegate to the government what we have the right to do ourselves. Anything else is tyranny. We have no right to take by force the money or property from one group to give to another.
When living in a free market system it is not a zero sum game. There is not a pre-determined amount of wealth where the only way one person can have more is if another person has less. Under free market enterprise, everyone can rise, improve, and prosper according to each person’s ability.
The next step for socialism is the idea that just taking and re-distributing is not enough. Now we must work that “fairness” more by having the government own or run the major industries (think healthcare, auto, energy, and financial industries). The reasoning is that by the government running the majority of the economy we will be able to achieve more “fairness” or economic equality. This centralized type of economy is hugely inefficient and ineffective. Under a free market system, producers determine what products and services to produce based on what the consumers want, and when consumers want a lot of a certain product or service, producers will work hard to meet that demand. Under the centralized socialist economy, however, products and services are produced that bureaucrats determine are what is best for the people with very little to no regard for what people want (for example the government might push electric cars and windmills regardless whether anyone wants them or not). It quickly gets very condescending as the government expects the people or “the masses” to accept that the “benevolent” government somehow knows what is best for them and that “the masses” are not capable of determining what is best for themselves.
The examples of the failures of centralized economies abound. The early settlers of the United States provide a stark example. The settlers at Jamestown were to live in an economic system where the land that would be used to provide food for the survival of the community was centrally owned and all people were expected to take their turn working in the fields to provide for the community. The community would be a little utopia where everyone worked for the common good. The problem is that it was an utter disaster! Hundreds died from disease and starvation. The starvation was not because the crops failed, but because they did not get planted or that they did not get tended to once they were planted. It is nothing short of a miracle that Jamestown did not completely fail. When the Puritans came later, they tried to live the same economic system that was tried in Jamestown. If anyone in the world could be successful at living such an economic system it should be the Puritans who were very religious and believed sincerely that they should love and care for each other. They still suffered from starvation. While not the major catastrophe that was seen at Jamestown the conditions didn’t improve greatly until both communities decided to give people private property that they were free to do with as they pleased and anything that they grew on that land was theirs to use or trade as they saw fit. After they changed and allowed private property both communities started to prosper.
While all the preceding are my thoughts on socialism, here are some quotes from Ezra Taft Benson-
“The government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who created it.”
“Any attempt through governmental intervention to re-distribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.”
“The growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship, but let us hope that this time around the trend can be reversed.”
(And not a quote, but paraphrased) Three things needed to reverse this trend-
1. Historical knowledge of socialism’s failures in contrast with the benefits of free enterprise
2. Modern means of communication to transmit this knowledge to a large literate population
3. A growing number of dedicated men and women working to promote these concepts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)