Is it an anti-capitalist agenda -- not just a liberal one?

I don't necesarily consider myself a "right winger", but like a lot of other observers of the political landscape, I expected the tone of economic and business reporting from the mainstream media to become "Happy Days are Here Again" once President Obama took office. After all, let's be honest; their favortism for him during the election was not exactly subtle. So what gives? The message of doom and gloom is as pervasive as ever. Is it -- now that Obama is president -- the relationship has changed between him and the media and he is now the target for attack by virtue of his position. But then it occurs to me -- getting a liberal elected president is only scratching the surface of a deeper agenda. Most types in the media, although they love President Obama, are no friends of captialism or free enterprise -- and therefore, with his election, their work has only just begun. Although beat back for the moment, nationalization of a large part of the banking & financial industry is not unrealistic to consider in the current environment. Then what -- automobiles, energy, health care (the biggie!), etc.

The interesting, and ironic, thing is that most members of the media do not comprehend that there is a direct linkage between economic and personal freedom -- that is freedom of speech. The more the government influences, or outright controls, large sectors of our economy, the less tolerant it is apt to be of criticism and "obstructionists". A media establishment that was once so strong in influencing the direction of our country may very find itself serving in a position of commuincation arm for the government, only voicing the party line -- or else.

Anyway, that's my random rant. I would hope that this might be a topic to generate some vigorous discussion.

I keep wondering what newspaper you guys read, because I keep hearing about this so-called "love for Obama" the media showed. Obviously, you weren't in the south, where the media kept reminding us that he's black (horror!), and thus we should all vote for McCain.

Nonetheless, I think if the media was "in love" with Obama, it was likely because they were in love with his message. I mean, this is the first time in my entire voting life, that I can remember a candidate delivering a message of hope and competence, built on logic and intelligence -- not fear mongering and gloom-and-doom scenarios. And this is the first time I have ever voted FOR a candidate, rather than against the worse of two evils.

The idea that the business and economic news should be "Happy days are here again", just because Obama was elected is just so much piffle. The crisis we are facing is huge -- even if Jesus himself came down from heaven and blessed Wall Street, it wouldn't restore consumer confidence. The problems are bigger than any one person -- no matter how well "loved" (and loved by a mere 64% of the people, if the recent polls matter) -- can handle.

What is impressive to me is how this crisis has proven that, more than ever, the ties that bind our economy together are so many, so vast, so diverse. The talking heads on CNBC and other news outlets can't rely on the One Magic Thing -- words of wisdom from Greenspan, for example -- to explain everything. There is no Theory of Everything, and the pundits need to stop looking for it. "Consumer Confidence" is a tenuous, thready thing, as wispy as clouds and spider web silk.

Take myself for example. I have a lot of confidence in our new president. I was ecstatic when he was elected, and there were moments, as he rolled back certain horrendous choices by the previous president, where I felt incredible relief and joy. But that hasn't translated into "consumer confidence" -- I'm not spending, in other words. Confidence in the new president doesn't erase the fact that my husband was unemployed for six months, that he won't get his first paycheck at the new job for another three weeks, that we piled up some bills during that time, that those bills need to be paid off, that his new job involves a move which might have us paying a mortgage and rent until the house is sold, etc etc.

I imagine it's similar for everybody, although everyone's story is slightly different. Even if someone thinks Obama is the Second Coming, there's still the issue of day to day living. This person might be worried about layoffs, that person supplies parts to GM and may have to close their business when GM goes under, this one got into too much house for their income, this one was set to retire and now their portfolio is a mess, that one retired a year ago but the decimation to their portfolio means they have to re-enter the workplace at a time when millions are out of work, this one has medical expenses, that one's parents made bad investments and has to move in with them, and these over here -- well, their kids can't find jobs with their college degrees and student loans and are having to move back home.

Until those worries lift from our shoulders, we won't feel safe spending our money willy-nilly -- and it's willy-nilly spending that we need, to get back to the "consumer confidence" of old.

Just to make a brief comment, but "willy-nilly" spending is not the sign of a healthy economy. Take a look around you and tell me about the health of our economy. If there has ever been a time of "willy-nilly" spending it has been the past two decades.

Cause-and-effect needs to be re-examined. In other words, if positive GDP growth is the effect we want, be sure that it is the EFFECT and DO NOT turn it in to the CAUSE. What I mean is this: generally speaking, people ought not purchase luxury automobiles because they can afford the payments, they ought to purchase the luxury automobiles when the money for the payments comes from discretionary income. Discretionary income only exists after adequately saving for the proverbial 'rainy-day' (or retirement, children's education, etc.). The EFFECT is the purchase of the Mercedes, and the CAUSE is being well off financially. Make sense? Now let us apply that example to the economy. The effect is positive GDP growth but the cause is individual saving. You see, there cannot be a long-term growth in GDP when the national saving rate is equal or less than zero. Giving people that do not save a little bit of security (regarding the economy and their jobs) does nothing more than place a band-aid on the real issue. You see, people can still lose their job even if the Dow is soaring, and people certainly send their kids to college and ultimately retire in times of economic growth, so if the individual does not save for these events, then there will always be insecurity. On the flip side, if that individual saved as they ought to have, when the Dow tanks or the country goes into a recession, it is a mere hiccup in their financial lives: because they saved properly, they can feel free to spend.

So how is America turning positive GDP growth into the cause rather than the effect? By telling Americans to spend rather than save. That is a great short-term solution, but it is long-term suicide.

-Joe

Good point, Joe! -- see, I, too, have been listening too long to pundits, that I fell into the "spend, and all will be well" trap.

Interesting article from "Prospect", a UK publication, on what comes next -- that is, what comes after capitalism as we have known it.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10680

Why does Mr. Mulgan believe that this recession marks a shift away from capitalism?

It's in the article -- he points out that previous crises have all led to more egalitarian changes in social issues, with more pressure put on capitalism to perform so those social agendas can be met. His theory is that we've about reached the extent of what unbridled capitalism can do for social issues, and that more regulation will be needed to support those social issues (as the blurb says, capitalism will become the servant of humanity, not its master).

This is a pretty huge recession. Previous hits haven't hurt so vast a number of sectors all at once (except the Great Depression, perhaps). The people are crying out for the government to take a greater role in redistributing the wealth. Increases in unemployment compensation is just the beginning. Before it's over, we will be well on the way toward universal healthcare (which IMHO is an admirable goal), as that is among those unbridled sectors of capitalism most directly hurting the vast majority of people.

Mr. Mulgan celebrates the end of capitalism being our master. I don’t see capitalism as being our master. In comparing capitalism/socialism to a master/servant model, I see capitalism as the servant and socialism as the master.

Normally, as a characteristic of capitalism, recessions come and go. So if this were only a recession, I would see no reason to view it as the harbinger of a transition away from capitalism, and on to a replacement for capitalism as Mr. Mulgan apparently does.

But because I don’t see what we are going through as primarily a recession, I have to agree with Mr. Mulgan’s observation that this recession has the possibility of leading us to less capitalism and more socialism. I see this apparent recession for the most part as not being a recession, but rather, an attack on capitalism, or a bridling of unbridled capitalism so to speak. And as such, it is indeed leading us to more socialism. So Mr. Mulgan and I agree on where we are heading, but we have different opinions on why we are heading there. We also disagree on whether heading there is a good thing or a bad thing.

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

Colonel "Davy" Crockett was more than just "King of the Wild Frontier!"

-Joe

Interesting thread.
(Please feel free to disagree with every opinion in my message. I won't think less of you for it. If something sounds rude, it's done in the interest of being concise.)

Puck's article is interesting, but the writer makes points by poking at the definition of capitalism, and then tugging at our collective desire to make everything allright for everybody. At the end of the day, it's the same socialist arguments. It didn't work for the settlers at Plymouth Rock, and it won't work now.

I feel the need to define Capitalism in a concise manner; my understanding of it anyway:
Capitalism is freedom, private property rights, open markets.
Capitalism doesn't work without integrity.
Freedom can't work without integrity
Democracy doesn't work without integrity.
Capitalism doesn't work when Greed is rampant - There's a reason the medieval church listed greed as one of the 7 deadly sins.

The more laws and restrictions we are compelled to write, the more we hinder capitalism and freedom. Some of this hindrance is necessary; most of it just gets in the way.

I don't look for Washington to solve problems in my community. I will do everything in my power to affect my local community as I see fit. I won't wallow in greed like Scrooge McDuck swimming in his money, but I also won’t whine about the poor souls who live like Mr. McDuck.

Another good point (indirectly brought up by the article): Socialism isn't the antithesis of capitalism, not necessarily. The two can exist together; in fact they have been since the New Deal. Our socialist government does hinder capitalism, and the more socialist we become, the more capitalism will be hindered.

I always break things down to their simplest form to understand them, so here goes:
I just helped two people start new businesses.
Both were employees who were afraid of losing their jobs, so they decided to take matters into their own hands.
Both started making money right away (They aren't making ‘Jerry Seinfeld’ money, but they are taking care of their families & paying their taxes).
Neither of them can hire employees because they can't get bank loans.
Neither of them wants to risk hiring employees because they believe taxes are going up - It's a risk / reward thing: Hiring employees is risky. They believe there is a big downside and a limited upside when it comes to hiring employees.

I agree with them, but I'm going to hire a couple marketing executives next week anyway. Wish me luck!

fender 5150,

I strongly agree with most of your points except for your comments about greed. I think greed has become a political term that is being used to beat down capitalism so it can be replaced by socialism. It is true that we have a blend of the two philosophies, but they are mutually exclusive, and there is a constant tug-of-war between them. Currently, the socialism side is winning.

I think greed is a true human characteristic all right. And it can damage anyone who expresses it. But capitalism offers an unlimited opportunity for achievement under the theory that everyone will be better off if everyone is able to do their best. It is that reward of capitalism that provides the incentive to take the risk that is needed to make capitalism work.

Blaming capitalism for greed is just like the other current fashion of characterizing profit as unethical. Both are political tools. Profit is the reward for risk, and without both risk and reward, you can’t have capitalism. The unlimited potential of achievement inherent in capitalism is not greed, although the participants can become psychologically greedy to their own personal detriment. But the personal achievement inherent in capitalism cannot hurt another person if the business is conducted within the law.

Euclid; Good stuff.

Although; I didn't intend to blame Capitalism for Greed. My contention is that greed corrupts Capitalism (Greed can corrupt about anything actually).

RE: Your point that Greed h/b redefined - YES! Greed has become synomimous with Profit - according to politicians. American Philosophy has been corrupted.

Try this on for size (and forgive the absoluteness of the statements):
When people lack integrity, Capitalism is a better Servant for humanity than any other form of exchange (creation and distribution of goods and services).
If people were completely moral and had great work ethics and integrity; any form of exchange would work - Socialism, Communism, Autonomy.
The "ism" isn't the problem. It's the heart.

Too much for a Monday morning huh?

Fender,

I agree that greed is corrupting, but the damage is limited to the greedy as long as the greedy do not break the law. And yes, greed certainly has become synonymous with profit.

I agree that capitalism will work with people who lack integrity. It will work better with people who do not lack integrity. Socialism would be fine if it were voluntary between the participants. But the personal surrender that is needed for voluntary socialism is unlikely unless the participants truly love each other, and that is highly unlikely if at all possible (unless the group of participants is very small).

Without this critical ingredient, socialism will not work on a voluntary basis. So the way it usually comes about is by government-ordered socialism, which amounts to a form or imprisonment or enslaving one person to another. This is justified on the basis that if we are forced to take care of each other, we will all grow to love each other enough to make socialism work without feeling the pain of our loss of individual liberty. Of course, this is just a pretext to justify a system where all the prosperity is stolen by the ones who govern the system while the subjects of the system are expected to be content because they are all equal.

Along with the current fashion of demonizing profit and declaring greed, I have noticed the rising fashion of promoting volunteerism, even to the point of suggesting that volunteerism should be compulsory. Volunteerism is a wonderful personal trait, but it is not volunteerism if it is compulsory. This fashion of volunteerism and service to others is being sold as a virtue, but it is actually a conditioning for the premise that we are all responsible for each other, which can then be used to justify government socialism. This theme of volunteerism is truly a red flag.

Compulsory volunteerism sounds kind of Orwellian.

But the idea that we are NOT responsible for each other is morally disgusting.

But the idea that we are NOT responsible for each other is morally disgusting.

I am not sure what you mean by “responsible.” We have a moral responsibility to do no harm to others. Beyond that, it may be virtuous to help other people, but who says it is a responsibility? Being responsible for each other sounds nice, but how is it done on a practical basis? What does it mean? Where to you draw the line? I would take it to mean that each one of us must be responsible for each and every person. That is an awful lot of responsibility for one person to bear.

If we stop just as "not doing harm to others", that is sufficient. And it covers a lot of what many find reprehensible about capitalism -- the way it is a gaping, insatiable maw that eats up people and spits them out. That's everything from workers, to the people affected by having a plant in the neighborhood; from the wife who never sees her husband because he firmly believes keeping his job means working 70 hours a week, to the worker who can't have a personal life because he or she is a "company man".

Arguments in favor of capitalism would be more valid IF AND ONLY IF there were a valid model out there elsewhere. As it stands, there is not one (except us, and frankly, we're not a great model anymore). There are, however, many viable, attractive, and desirable models of nations that share the wealth, nations with comprehensive womb-to-tomb social welfare systems that are still strong economic powers, nations where nationalized health care has given citizens an edge, etc.

If you want to talk just about nationalized health care, it is a crime, a sin, and an incomprehensible morass of stupidity, that our nation supposedly has the best doctors, the best insurers, and the best medical equipment on the planet, but our citizens live shorter lives than people who live with socialized medicine; and our babies die at higher rates than under socialized medicine; and we focus on emergency care instead of preventive care, and we still die at higher rates, at younger ages, and of preventable illnesses, than people who live under socialized medicine.

Capitalism is NOT the solution for every single thing that ails us. It is quickly becoming apparent that medical care is one of those areas where capitalism has failed to provide us with what we need. I mean, think about it -- your cancer demands that someone -- EVERYONE! -- makes a profit. Your illness as an opportunity for someone else to get rich? That is morally disgusting, too.

Should the inventor of a new medical device make a profit? -- sure, absolutely -- BY BEING THE BEST DEVICE IN THAT CLASS SO THAT PEOPLE ADOPT IT AND STOP USING THE OTHER DEVICE. THAT is the way capitalism is supposed to work. But what has happened in medical care is that profiteers are holding our health hostage -- they know we want to cure the cancer, or survive the heart attack, so they charge us rates we HAVE to pay, because our only other choice is death.

Speaking of models....can we think of any other service where, if we allowed it to be for-profit, it, too, would hold our lives and property hostage? Yes -- police and fire service! There's a reason why the government has to be the one to provide some services -- not only because there is no way to reasonably make a profit yet ensure services are equal across the board, but also because the tendency in profit is to serve those masters with money, and to hell with the poor, needy, underserved, etc. This already sounds suspiciously like modern American health care -- and this is why it is ripe for regulation and or "socialization".

Puck,
There are many arguments that have been made for socialism and against capitalism, and you have made several of them here. The arguments for socialism are always made on the basis that it helps people, but the true and profound beneficiaries of socialism are the people who run the system. Socialism divides up the pie equally among the people who produce it, but not until after the people who run the system take a disproportionately large portion of the pie. They live a grand lifestyle as the political ruling class. Meanwhile, the people producing the pie realize that they get the same size piece of it whether they work hard or hardly work, so nobody is motivated to work hard. Thus, the pie is much smaller than it could be if people were motivated by the reward of their effort.

Therefore, there is a tremendous motive to advance socialism for the benefit of those will run the system. And they make the strongest arguments for it, while making equal arguments against capitalism. This rhetoric does fall on fertile ground with those who feel that life has been unfair to them, and it is all somebody else’s fault. They easily buy into the fairness argument as a means to give them back what they feel they have been cheated out of. But, at the same time, they fail to realize that socialism is the un-fairest game of all, and that they are being conned by the people who will run the socialist system and are dishonestly promoting it in their own self-interest.

You say that capitalism is an insatiable maw that eats up people and spits them out. But your examples such as the wife who never sees her husband because he firmly believes keeping his job means working 70 hours a week, does not seem to match the charge of eating up and spitting out people. You mention that there are many viable, attractive, and desirable models of nations that share the wealth, nations with comprehensive womb-to-tomb social welfare systems that are still strong economic powers, nations where nationalized health care has given citizens an edge, etc. What models are these?

I agree that our healthcare system is a big problem, but I don’t see it as the fault of capitalism. If anything, the problem with it is a lack of capitalism or free market forces. It is not really a socialist system yet, but the business model creates the same outcome as socialism. The problem with the healthcare industry is that nobody is directly responsible for the cost, so not only is there no competition, there is no need for competition. There would be price competition except for the fact that incentive for competition is diluted by the third party payer system that involves insurance as the third party. So the patient does not care what the services cost because insurance is paying for it. Likewise, the provider does not care about the cost because they know that the patient does not care about the cost. The insurance companies do not care about the cost because they know the consumer cannot correlate the cost of service with the cost of insurance. Moreover, the insurance companies add their own overhead cost to the cost of every service.

There is a solution to the healthcare cost problem, but while it is in the interest of the consumer, it is not in the interest of the healthcare industry, the government, or the insurance industry to produce that solution. Basically, the solution is to stop using insurance to pay for every routine medical service, and only use it to pay for catastrophic occurrences. Think about it. If we used the third party payer model of the healthcare industry to buy groceries, a gallon of milk would probably cost $64. The solution to the runaway cost of healthcare is to re-introduce free market competition at the consumer level.

Euclid -- your initial premise is incorrect. Socialism is not about equaling everything out -- that's communism, which has proven to be an abject failure. Socialism is the recognition that some things -- even some very expensive things, like health care, paid maternity leave, free libraries, etc -- are the RIGHT of the people, and have to be paid for through taxes.

The best model of socialism (as you phrase it -- not all these nations call themselves socialist) is Sweden. Generous unemployment, health care, maternity/paternity leave, etc. And yet, they are still economically viable, one of the strongest in the European Union! Pure unbridled capitalism isn't necessary -- what IS necessary is intelligent taxation, and intelligent use of tax money, rather than using the electorate as a popularity contest and using the public coffers to enrich one's own district (or one's own pocket).

It should also be noted that of all Western nations (with one exception), Sweden is the only one that is NOT experiencing a horrific drop in birth rate. Why does this matter? -- it matters to any nation that needs to have young people to work, to support to social support system. Sweden's egalitarian policies, including PATERNITY leave but also including a society that sees women and men as true equals, and doesn't force men and women in certain roles which women now find unpalatable, gives women the social support they need to have a DESIRE for children. Other Western nations, like Italy, and Greece, and Spain, where women are still expected to be the sole caretakers of children, where men are preferred while women are second-class citizens, are also nations showing the most precipitous decline in birth rates, as their women find less and less reason to want to have children -- I mean, why take on a role that makes you a drudge, a dependent, and a second-class citizen?

The one exception is the USA, and our rates are at replacement ONLY because of immigrants, and the children they are having. When you look solely at populations that have been here for at least two generations (especially whites, blacks, and Asians), their rates are dropping as much as other Western nations. Without a society that VALUES -- not just gives lip-service to -- women as equals, and does not demand that women alone be child-caretakers, you're not going to get the birthrate back up.

Without the birthrate, you can't support even the most basic of social support systems, like American Social Security. A generous social support system ALONE won't do it -- you have to have a sea-change in society. Sweden has accomplished it. France is close behind. Germany also works (although Germany's "socialist" systems are reserved for "genetic"-Germans only, and not for immigrants, so it's not a good model for America).

The arguments about "equalizing" wealth are ludicrous. There are still rich people in Sweden, France, and Germany. If you took away (through taxation) half of Bill Gates' wealth, he would still be fantastically wealthy! Ditto Warren Buffet. There are not many people who, upon losing half their wealth, would be thrown into poverty and despair. They would still be rich.

I tend to agree with your healthcare solution, except that the practice of using health insurance has gone on so long that a premium (to cover those who don't pay) is already built into the cash payment. Further, many people assume that if you can afford to pay cash, you can afford to pay full price, rather than a cash discount -- because who pays cash for medical services??? I have very recently paid cash for medical services, and it's ridiculous. Six years ago, a routine annual pelvic exam was $350, PLUS lab fees. If we had to pay cash, women everywhere would not have their annual exams -- rates of breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, etc, would skyrocket -- and we're back to the situation we have with an insurance system, that people are self-rationing health care, because they can't afford to pay. If we're going to ration health care, why not ration it on the side of hope and health?

And besides, the rates are too ridiculous. I have an itemized bill right here -- I had a sterilization procedure not long ago, and the total bill is $10,000. I owe $755, which is more than I can afford to pay at this time (it's the end of the semester -- I don't get paid again until September). If I'd had a baby, though, it would easily have been $30,000. Who can afford to pay that for a baby?

Which brings us back to the birthrate issue....

Fender,
socialism will not work on a voluntary basis.

But the idea that we are NOT responsible for each other is morally disgusting.


Puck is right! Who could call themselves moral if they don't take care of the poor and needy? I desperately hope Euclid is wrong.

I truly believe individual freedom is more important than any social case! Any sustainable philosophy should not viotate that truth, in my opinion. And that's what's wrong with Emanuel Kant's 'Moral Imperitive' philosophy.

Why not try religious socialism? aka Thomas Merton? Why not stop putting greedy SOBs on a pedestal?

Here's a bit of mindless blathering:
We must support social causes, but not at the point of a gun. Come on guys! We need freedom, not more restriction. Isn't it also morally disgusting to have out-of-controll Government? People who give lip service to social causes but enrich themselves and their friends with Government money (Our money!). Socialism and chroniism (which I consider synomimous) is what happened to AIG, Fanny Mea, Freddy Mac, (and even GM to some extent). Leaders were appointed in these organizations based on thier Political connections. The companies were being run by people who had no business being there. These are all symptoms of moral failure. Leaders with too much power and too willling to use it to serve themselves!

I desperately hope Euclid is wrong, but Euclid's statement is believed by everyone who would wish even more Big Government upon us. I am disgusted by people who don't lift a finger to help others (The Scrooges, the misers, etc.). I'm not impressed by any of them. I'm more disgusted by the idea of losing my freedom and property to government. I'll decide which social programs are best and I'll give to those causes.

I don't know enough about Sweden to say what is working and why. Perhaps their model is worth looking into. My gut tells me they are making a mistake if they are moving toward socialism and away from (capitalism and individual freedom).


BTW: The corporate tax rate in Sweden is 26.3% in 2009, it was 28% in 2008 (Compared to 35% in the US). The personal tax rate is very high though!

I would also point out that although the US corporate tax rate is 35%, the effective tax rate -- the actual money that goes to the government -- is much less, because of the many deductions and loopholes the tax code allows.

We're not talking about higher taxes -- we're talking about getting the money we SHOULD be getting, if we didn't allow everyone and his underwear to get a deduction.

I don't know enough about Sweden to say what is working and why. Perhaps their model is worth looking into. My gut tells me they are making a mistake if they are moving toward socialism and away from (capitalism and individual freedom).
Just a quick note on Sweden and the health care system they employ; they are (and have been) moving to private/public system from a purely government service for years now. This was primarily in response to long waits for treatment and rationing of prescriptions/procedures. The programs offered a maximum wait for treatment at 45 days. This was blown out by a very public waiting time of around 11 months by their own Prime Minister to get a hip replacement. The costs are primarily the same for the consumer, but private hospitals and practices are taking the lead on quality treatment in an expeditious manner. As the trend continues, the government-provided services are quickly becoming viewed as inferior to private enterprise. In cases where the government does not approve the treatment for reimbursement or cause an excessive wait, many patients have begun to take on much of the costs themselves to obtain the treatment the desire. Thus, defeating the utopia of a purely universal health care system administered by the government.

The moral of the story is that for ideal conditions to exist, there must be competition and open choice for the consumer. As Euclid stated, any third-payor party will prevent this from happening. There is no free market for consumers, thus no pressures on price nor supply/demand pressure on specific treatments.

Puck is right! Who could call themselves moral if they don't take care of the poor and needy? I desperately hope Euclid is wrong.

I truly believe individual freedom is more important than any social case! Any sustainable philosophy should not viotate that truth, in my opinion. And that's what's wrong with Emanuel Kant's 'Moral Imperitive' philosophy.



Fender, your response confuses me. I did say, “socialism will not work on a voluntary basis,” but I am not sure what you conclude from that. In any case, there was a broader context to what I said. I did not mean to suggest that I was advocating socialism. Also, I did not mean to suggest that I was stipulating that socialism must be forced on people because it will not work on a voluntary basis.

It will not work on a compulsory (government mandated system) basis either, but my point was that it would not even work on a voluntary basis unless there is love and devotion between the participants, and that would be unlikely in groups the size of a society. However, it if did happen to work on a voluntary basis between members of a group, I would not be against it. If it worked, and it was voluntary with all participants being satisfied, there would be no problem.

This is what I said in its full context:

“Socialism would be fine if it were voluntary between the participants. But the personal surrender that is needed for voluntary socialism is unlikely unless the participants truly love each other, and that is highly unlikely if at all possible (unless the group of participants is very small).

Without this critical ingredient, socialism will not work on a voluntary basis.”



The critical ingredient that I was referring to is total love and devotion between all members of the socialist group. This would be like the love and devotion between a husband and wife, where both will do all they can to enhance the quality of life of the couple without any regard to which member is doing the most or the least.

Beyond the husband and wife model, that kind of selfless devotion might exist even with a small group of people, and thus allow socialism to work as their system. But it certainly will not work with a large group of strangers, no matter how much each one believes in platitudes about the need to care for each other. The practical reality is that some will not work as hard as they can because they will realize that the rest of the group will carry them. And the rest of the group will realize this, and they will resent it. They will not work as hard as they can because, in the end, all members get an equal share of the total work result, and they don’t see why they should bust their rear ends when others are not doing their share. This is the fatal flaw of collectivism, whether voluntary or coerced.

I am not advocating that people should not care for each other or extend a helping hand. But I strongly disagree with the premise that we are all responsible for each other when it is coerced by a government as a pretext to make us all slaves to the state. So when you said that Puck is right and that you hope that I am wrong, I think you misunderstand my point. And if we are being told by a government that we all have a responsibility to each other, I must again ask how we are to discharge this responsibility on a practical basis. If the so-called responsibility is simply open-ended, then we must all give to others until we no longer have more than anyone else. And I doubt that very many proponents of the responsibility for others would want to go that far.

You have a good point about love and devotion within the group.

This may be why the most successful cradle-to-grave social welfare systems exist in countries with a strong hegemony. Remember my mention of Germany's services for "genetic Germans" only? Germany is a nation with no love for immigrants, who are locked out of virtually every facet of German life, from jobs to unemployment benefits, etc. That "love" exists in Germany because "everyone's a German".

You must admit -- a lot of the hatred in America for social welfare systems is because the majority of people think that the recipients of such aid are "those people". A few generations ago, it was fear of all those lazy black people. Today's it's fear of the spanish-speaking person and his pregnant wife, who obviously came over here just to have her baby on American soil, and now by golly we are on the hook for this kid, blah blah blah. A hundred years ago, it was the Irish, or the Italian, or the Jew. We can't have "those people" getting rich from our hard earned money.

It will take an extraordinary leap of love, for "us" to believe that the brotherhood of man includes "them" as well. If only there were a group to model such behavior for us! I wonder who that could be.....

You must admit -- a lot of the hatred in America for social welfare systems is because the majority of people think that the recipients of such aid are "those people". A few generations ago, it was fear of all those lazy black people.


Some of the hatred for they American social welfare systems may indeed be based on the discrimination-against-the-beneficiaries reasons that you cite. My objection is not against the welfare recipients because they are “those people,” as you say. My objection is not even against the welfare recipients, no matter who they are. It is not even particularly against the fact that I am being forced to pay for other people’s needs.

What I object to is the government’s motivation to expand itself by creating redistribution programs, and then consuming a large part of what it takes to redistribute. In this context, the government’s message that we are responsible for each other is just a propaganda ruse to con the people into growing the government.

What I object to is the government’s motivation to expand itself by creating redistribution programs, and then consuming a large part of what it takes to redistribute. In this context, the government’s message that we are responsible for each other is just a propaganda ruse to con the people into growing the government.

RIGHT! Everything that happens from Washington feels like a power-grab!
Regarding your comment about Socialism. I thought you were saying:
1. Socialism is a good thing. I agree.
2. It must be forced upon people because "Socialism won't work on a voluntary basis". I disagree. I think freedom is more important than everything else (I don't mean Anarchy, of course). That includes the freedom to be an anti-social money-brubbing Scrooge-Mcduck-type capitalist. People like this should be marginalized and ignored (Donald Trump, Al Gore**, Paris Hilton). They shouldn't be put on a pedistal.

PUCK; I'm with you regarding loopholes. The tax code should be simplified!

pricespector: Great info. about Sweden!

We seem to want the same things; and we seem to agree about many things. But our priorities and preferred methods are a little different - Majorly different some cases!



**Yes: I think Al Gore and Paris Hilton are two of a kind. I think history will reveal that he's amoung the most opportunistic, un-sincere, and selfish people on the planet. If he is sincere, then he's obtuse.

We dont have capitalism anymore, this is a new style of savage money grabbing.

_________________
Miami Beach Condos (http://www.miamibeachcondosandhomes.com)