Answer for: Would you be willing to give up your personal wealth as the price for living in a sharing society?
#2 Hell no!
by picasso5 2 months ago
| 
17 Comments
Haven't you noticed??? Socialism always fails.
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2008 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by Grupthink
Revision: 1691
Comments |
Leave a comment
... and how are we succeeding?
always fails
America's socialized school system, interstate system, police forces. etc.=fail
our socialized armed forces? well they fail to impress me
I thought armerica wasn't stacking up academically to the rest of the world?
Wow, that got modded down quickly.
Saying socialism always fails has become accepted as a truism. People rarely back the statement up with a convincing argument. Usually it's something along the lines of socialism = Soviet Union, Soviet Union failed so socialism is a failure.
Let's see, a school system that makes it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher due to lobbying efforts of the teacher's union and a beuracratic assignment of funds that always seems to end in no-bid contracts to government cronies.
An interstate (highway?) system with collapsing bridges and croney contracts which are always slow and expensive?
And let's not forget our armed forces with their bloated budget, million dollar officer's clubs, dusty arsenal, and even more croney contracts.
Yeah, it would be awful if we actually had businesses compete for goods instead of handing them contracts based on who gave the most to a campaign.
Your examples aren't good ones in favor of socialism. In fact they aren't even examples of socialism. Publicly offered goods aren't a socialist idea, they existed and were even approved of by free-market capitalists since Adam Smith.
"Your examples aren't good ones in favor of socialism"
That was not my intent akkad, but your unevidenced, anecdotal accounts are certainly passionate
Akkad, are those arguments against socialism or against poor management?
One and the same, Mapleseed. One and the same. Socialism is handing the state complete control over private business. Power corrupts and the ability to confiscate and hand out wealth is power indeed. If we had a governemnt run by emotionless and undesiring robots or angels then socialism might work. I said work, not be justified.
I don't trust any central authority with my money or my neighbors money. If I want to see poverty eradicated then I will donate to charity. If a business produces what it claims I will give it my money. However if you don't have to compete then there is no incentive to innovate or offer the best. With a monopoly on business government (politicians) can set the rules to suite themselves.
Government interference always produces bad management. Anti-trust laws are good things but have been turned, through corruption, into a weapon to squash competition. Farm subsidies made sense once but have been been used to pay small farms not to produce so big farms can. The postal service is being radically outperformed, but they don't try to compete because any loses they incur are padded by more tax dollars. FEMA is impotent because of beuracratic corruption while private charities provided for the victims of Katrina. And so on and so forth ad nauseum.
I would rather trust the people to do with their money as they see fit then trust the government to be a benevolent planner (a few steps removed from dictator).
Oh, and anecdotal evidence is great. I love it because it always forms the basis for a quick google search.
Teacher's Unions bad for Education:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/
http://www.realclear...15_06_JS.html
http://teachersunionexposed.com/
School Competition Works:
http://en.wikipedia....plementations
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_10.htm
http://www.cato.org/..._coulson.html
No-Bid Contracts
http://www.chicagotr...4710782.story
http://hansmast.com/?p=471
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/23/15317/8859
http://www.pittsburg...s_558663.html
http://www.nytimes.c...p;oref=slogin
Actually Mapleseed I would say the opposite is true, most liberals seem to take "government control is best" as a truism with little to back it up. I agree with you Akkad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Abendergo,
Some people may argue that government control is always best. Nobody's said that here. The only place that argument appears in this thread is in your straw man.
On the other hand, this answer and entire thread is based on the claim that socialism always fails. No argument or evidence is given to back it up.
You're arguing for Socialism. Socialism is government control of hte economy and private property. So yes, people are arguing that government control is best.
Obviously, some functions should be run by government agencies (why else have a government?). But, there are many examples of government-run functions that are / have been ineffective, or outright failures. Note that this is a little different than arguing about socialism as a state-enforced national economy.
Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants
http://www.washingto...?hpid=topnews
Europe’s Ailing Social Model: Facts & Fairy-Tales
(eye-popping info here)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/933
Unfortunately, despite this evidence of poor performance and failure, I predict the USA will venture down a similar path.
The War on Poverty
http://www.humaneven...860#continueA
Amtrak
http://usgovinfo.abo...amtrakrip.htm
Social Security (threat of failure)
Socialism always fails (a few moral, political, economic, and historical reasons):
http://www.amazon.co...89&sr=8-3
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
http://www.fee.org/p....asp?aid=4014
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=600
http://mises.org/story/1934
http://www.associate...ies_fail.html
http://www.freecolorado.com/2000/07/10percent.html
http://www.helium.co...annot-succeed
http://www.gmu.edu/d...ocialism.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31174.html
http://oll.libertyfu...amp;Itemid=27
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north46.html
http://en.wikipedia...._of_socialism
You'll be happy to know that if you search "socialism always fails" this thread is on the fifth page.
Where have I argued for socialism?
I said the statement "socialism always fails" is treated as a truism (as it has been here).
My two cents on the subject is that socialism doesn't work, for a host of reasons. I do believe however in a social insurance system, as in a universally provided "safety net" to help minimize risk.
However I am increasingly of the opinion that social change should be left up to the people with private charities leading the charge. A government is a dangerous tool and giving it too much authority has always proven a bad thing.
I believe it's best if the person chooses how to impact the world, say by donating his time and money to a cause. I think this way we maintain freedom and can still enact social change.
In the end I believe we can be a sharing society without government redistribution.
FZ: I agree with your comment from start to finish. However, I think we'll see both large new and expanded social programs enacted in the next couple of years, and whether they are effective or not, we'll be stuck with them. Occasionally, social programs are reformed. They are never eliminated.
Friar, I think you have more faith in the selfless generosity of man than I do.
Not saying socialism works, or is the best, or anything - just that I can see the elimination of so many programs when only those with the willingness to donate their time and money do so.