>Any defense of socialism I would mount would have to take into
>(1) Human nature is such that all people try to benifit themselves
(andto alesser extent their >friends/relatives) as much as possible. Thank goodness! This is almost a good enough reason by itself to preclude socialism.
>(2) 'Property' does not actually exist and is merely a way of saying
This is blatant nonsense. It's like saying love does not exist. Your
entire argument suffers because of this.
'Idenyyou access to this'.
This is blatant nonsense. It's like saying love does not exist. Your entire argument suffers because of this.
>(3) Sufficient social/monetary inequality leads to social disruption.
Social/monetary inequality is most often caused by government. When governments fool with prices (setting wages, regulating markets, socializing medicine, providing “free” education) they disrupt the natural effect of capitalism which is to set a fair price for every good and service. This causes income disparities (the government creates artificial markets enriching some and steals money from others for taxation making all poorer).
>(3) tends to cause problems in capitalist societies on an
internalbasis (inthe UK, under more capitalist >policies the percentage differencebetween therich and the poor went up by about 7% over the 10 years the >conservativeparty was in power. This caused large amounts of social unrest, demonstrations and the >biggest landslide in living history for theiropposition party).
This is obviously because of the socialist government of the UK. As I said above, tampering with prices causes these problems. Well meaning social programs siphons money (in the form of taxation) out of the economy and filters it through bureaucracies (where most of it goes thppppt!) and deposits what’s left in the hands of those unwilling or unable to earn it in the first place. If the economy was left alone, prices would be set at a fair and sustainable level and money would flow to those who earn it. Those unable to earn money should be supported by charity. Those unwilling to earn money should be left to rot.
>Communists tend to forget point (1) and focus on point (2).
>Capitalists tend to forget point (2) and focus on point (1)
Point (2) as I said is nonsense.
>A fourth point is sometimes useful to remember.(4) Homo Sapiens is a
pack animal that naturally >speaking has a heirarchy. People are most comfortable with a chain of command. They like to feelthatthe >chain of command listens to them and considers their feelings andthatit is looking out for them. It is a >mistake to indulge this too much,butit is worth bearing in mind.
What a broad, generalizing statement! Are you implying that simply because MOST people prefer a chain of command, that we should all be subject to one? Remember, in the 1800’s MOST people in the southern USA felt slavery was necessary. Does that make it right? Most people can’t name all nine planets or point to their home city on a map. Should we be subject to THEM?
>Having shown that both Communist and Capitalist societies tend to
forgetabout one of (1) or (2) thus >causing (3), I would say that it makessense to mix them sluightly, taking into account of both (1) and (2) >whichgives...socialism.
I’m afraid you’ve “shown” nothing.
>My preferred method of socialism would be to provide free Health
Care(of astandard necessary to get >people back to work) and enough of a handouttoallow people to survive. This handout should _not_ be
>means tested (ifitdrops as they start earning here is less incentive
to start earning).
>FreeEducation will also be provided (education leads to raised output
andhigherGNP's as well as lowering >reproduction), but not in the current form -ashas been pointed out most current education sucks.I look >forward to hearing objections.Samael
Tsk tsk… Your “free” education (which is funded by money forcibly stolen from wage earners) and socialized medicine (which is similarly funded) has left you blinded to the outrages perpetrated by socialism (theft, violence, subjugation, involuntary servitude). I suggest very strongly that you get a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson.” I think it would serve to open your eyes.
The Millennium Bookshelf: <http://www.donaghe.com/mbookshelf.htm>