First, it's important to discuss socialism before we apply it's implications to our current state. It's scary to think Bernie Sanders could have been president, and Alexandria Cortez won her office. The problem is that good intentions, does not necessarily mean good outcomes.
People have to understand that government is not a producer in the economy. It's services come at the cost of higher taxes, debt or inflation, or in some cases all three. You say, what's the problem with the government providing services for free.
The thing is, nothing is free. Someone will have to pay the bill. I am sure a lot of us are not really comfortable for paying for peoples degrees that don't actually add value to society. A lot of people with degrees, work regular jobs that don't require degrees. We shouldn't all be forced to pay.
The government not being a producer, it is a deception that government spending is included in G.D.P. When consumer spending goes up, it means people are making money. Both the people to be able to afford the product, and the producer making enough to pay wages and earn a profit. However, government spending comes at a cost, most people would probably disagree with.
The problem of government is that it requires the mechanism of force and coercion to achieve its objectives. Whereas, it is more rational to be in favor or free trade and voluntary associations, as compared to inefficient government services with a tax forced upon everyone.
The problem with socialism, is the problem of incentives. Whereas the business man has to serve society in a benefitial manner for his business to stay afloat. The politician just had to compromise his morals for campaign funds, and it's astounding that people keep voting for these same parties and individuals, regardless.
The problem also, is that who regulates, the regulators? People secretly want to be ruled, it absolves them of the responsibility of accepting their point in life as a result of their own choices. So often it's blamed on a popular demographic, such as the right or any race that is succeeding. However, the goal is to increase the size of the pie, not forcefully get it from someone and distribute it, while keeping a share to yourselves.
This is essentially what government does when it provides these so called services. They are not incentivized to serve but to protect the beuracracy that sustains them. Whereas a business man has to rely on voluntary exchange and actually producing goods that add value to society. That is why it is fallacious, to explain that the economy has expanded whereas it is merely more government spending in some aspects.
We can all see there are serious issues in our world. However, we have to accept that we cannot legislate our problems away. The problem is, the people have convinced themselves that their rules are a part of them since they voted for them. This couldn't be further from the truth, the further the power structure is, from a locality; the less accountabile to it's citizenry will be.
There is also the problem of human nature. By making things public, it doesn't mean that the people now own those things. This involves taking property from a person whose earned it, and then "nationalizing" it; meaning the state will be the primary benefitiaries. The problem is that these politicians don't care to "the people" this imaginary collective.
Those industries fail ultimately, or put countries in ruin like Venezuela. They took oil away from responsible owners and made "public", eventually it's only the political elites that benefit from such maneuvers and the populace is left to scramble for scraps, in the name of rations.
As a matter of fact, the media is a machinery as to which the top authorities influence the people. By consistently promoting agendas consistently through these mediums. It would be a bad idea to make the news "public" like the socialist would like to do. The media is bad enough. Making things public merely means expanding government power.
The other aspect is that we live in such economic insecurity, that we perceive that we need something to land on, when life befalls us. However, making the government more responsibile for our lives, simply means making us more dependent on them to survive.
The other thing is that even if good intentioned. These things arent free, it will come at a cost. It is blanketed under the term equality. I mean who doesn't want equality? However it is rarely asked what these socialists mean by equality.
You see, equality of outcomes is impossible to achieve. Even if you give beuracrats control of private companies in the name of "the people". People have inherent different capabilities, skills and interests. This variety is actually what makes society works.
What determines the value of work, is how in demand it is and how much it is perceived to increase the value of the prospective buyer. Demanding higher wages from jobs that don't produce much value or profit, will merely run them out of business, or it could be nationalized and stay afloat at the expense of the tax payer.
Just remember the bigger the state. The bigger the portion of your property or wealth, they will entitle themselves to. The states has to survive. If it means imposing quotas, setting up unreasonable laws and tax codes; all of those are done to generate revenue.
Remember, the government isn't a producer in the economy; it's a consumer of your taxes or purchasing power. Thus the socialist idea of increasing the state to provide equality is ridiculous. You are merely empowering the political elites.
Despite all the historical economic failures and death that have resulted; this collectivist ideology has re-emerged as people seek equality in pay; despite providing less value, or lacking skills or the education. This is just one, among other unreasonable demands.
People admire, yet simultaneously hold contempt for the rich. I am not in support of those who use scrupulous means and exploit others for their riches. Real businessmen provide more help, than phylanthrophists. The former creates jobs and creates independence of consumer choice, the other creates dependency, and temporarily alleviates a problem.
However, this is not surprising.This is a consequence of a culture that encourages self entitlement. The newer generation thinks they deserve things, just by existing. However the reality is you have to earn what you own. It is not the government's job to provide, but to govern.The price of freedom is difference in prosperity.
2 comments:
The media is a controlled tool of government. This is why the brainwashed have bought the lie of socialism aka communism. How crafty if the government to include their wasteful spending on war machinery and every expanding departments as an indicator of a prosperous economy. They fact alone tells how dumbed down most of our population has become. When the individual keeps more of their income they spend or invest more. That in turn creates more Jo's and the beat go on. President Regan referred to this simple truth as trickle down economics, and he was right! Socialism by design creates slaves.
I agree wholeheartely, though I have reservations towards trickle down economics
Post a Comment