People who argue for socialism are either whiners that just want to feel all warm and fuzzy inside or are using it as a means to rally the whiners into putting him/them in power(that isn't a good thing necessarily).
To debunk an accusation that was made. There is this wonderful popular conservative myth that says that people that think socialism is worthwhile are either -
A: Lazy people that live off of welfare and the support of the state, or
B: Soft wealthy or upper middle class people that somehow feel guilty about their success, and feel the need to fit in to some 'politically correct' ideology.
What Bullshit. I am neither a ward of the state, not feeling guilty that I'm not. I worked to get where I'm at, I'm proud to have done so, and far too sociopathic and self-centered to feel guilty about having a comfortabale, albeit not perfect, life.
It has the benefit of being a straw man argument that makes liberals look like either whiners or wishy washy, without actually having to admit that there's any simple logic to wanting to help other people get ahead.
I can narrow my views on socialism down to three sets of premises - if you reject one or more, you can logically reject setting aside some money to aiding others. If you accept all three, then it makes no sense to *not* use the government and taxes to help others.
First set of premises: I gained my position through a combination of hard work and luck, not hardwork alone.
By 'Luck', I mean that entire combination of factors that you had no control over - being noticed by a boss, being born into wealth, having the right editor take a chance on your work, by lumping all these things into the category of 'luck' we come across an obvious implication.
That one *could* be just as able, just as qualified, just as worthy, and yet not achieve the same things.
Second Set: When I do badly it causes problems for those around me. When I do well, those around me benefit.
Corollary: Other people having problems causes me problems. I benefit from other people doing well.
I confess, it is for me, an axiom so obvious I have difficulty conceiving of someone else not accepting it. Maybe it is egotistical for me to believe my life affects others, but if I accept that, it is far more egotistical for me to assume I'm somehow immune to the same effect.
So, when I set out to help others, it's not guilt. It's greed - it turns out that eliminating some of the problems of others has a direct effect on my life - and indeed, can (Not necessarily does) have an effect in excess of that of spending the same amount of energy getting a toy for myself.
Being a self-centered arse, I feel no need to dress this up as anything else - I'm not a sweet guy, I don't feel guilt, I'm simply a very odd sort of sociopath. Miss rich snob complains about the poor and wishes someone would 'do something'. My emotional reaction comes from the exact same annoyed self-centered places as miss rich snob - I just decided to 'do something'.
Third set: That, if I want to help others, there are things the government can do more efficiently than I, working personally, can do.
This is going to take awhile - because this isn't so much an assumption or premise, as it is the logical conclusion of one of the first principles of economics. Since I have to go through it step by step, I can't simply assert it and go on.
The first principle of economics, dating back to Adam Smith, is that if I'm really good at skill A (working on a car), but extraordinarily good a skill B (Working on a program), then even if the guy I hire to do the work is not as good at working on a car as I am, it still makes more sense for me to do what I'm good at and pay him to work on the car than it does for me to work on a car. The technical term is 'competitive advantage' but my economics professor coined it as the IGBSTD ("I've got better shit to do") principle, and we shall not debate his profound wisdom here.
Just because the other guy is the government, doesn't mean the IGBSTD principle doesn't apply. I may actually be better at something than the government, but unless I'm both better at it, and it's the single thing I do best, I'm actually still better paying someone else to do it than doing it myself.
If it's something that I want done, but it's hard to make a profit at, what we have is a case where everyone has better shit to do. But - I wanted it done! Well, you can't always get what you want. Either I have to do it myself, or I have to pay someone else that had better shit to do enough that this becomes the better shit to do.
Unless of course other people want it done too. Because a lot of stuff that needs to be done, and help society as a whole, are too expensive and don't deliver enough individual benefit to pay for it themselves, yet give the nation as a whole a competitive advantage over a nation that doesn't have it.
There is a common overly simplistic view of economics says this is impossible - that, if it delivers an advantage then, by definition, someone will fulfill that role and generate a profit - generally from people that have forgotten Ayn Rand was never actually an economist an that 'Anthem' is not actually based in any real economic model. Like Ayn Rand, they have forgotten the IGBSTD principle - To do these things, I not only have to make a profit, but I have to have *more* of a return on the energy I've invested than on anything else I could be doing instead.
This is frequently not possible. Think about it - in order for your fireman to take up firefighting, he not only has to be a great firefighter - he has to be better at that than he is at anything else he could be doing. Think about that from the point of view of pure, logical economics. He would have to make more, in the very few hours a months he's actually firefighting, than he could make any other time - enough to make up for the fact that in order to be good at this he has to spend time training that he could be fixing cars.
Either he's functionally retarded and has no other profitable skills - or it turns out you can't afford to be rescued from your burning home.
Or we come up with a third option. We agree that if we stay in the realms of pure capitalism, we cannot individually, or even as voluntary groups, pay the man what he's actually worth. So we cut a deal - on one side of the table, we make paying him involuntary - a tax. On the other side of the table, we have stated up front that we can't pay you what it's worth on the free market to have a guy come out and pull us out of a burning building - but we can make it worth your while, cover your hospital bills, and ensure you have a good life, if not as good as you would get fixing cars. Because it needs to be done, and you're good at it.
Let's be clear. This whole thing has been based on this 'Capitalist' versus 'Socialist' perspective, but that's a false perspective - from a strict point of view, the instant you're not paying for a firefighter to come to your house as an individual, you are a socialist. That's the definition - state ownership of a good or service, payed for by coercive taxation.
I am continually amazed by the number of people who make statements about the 'evils of socialism', but simply ignore simple facts like that. It's the economic equivalent of those Christian 'fundamentalists' that will argue that homosexuality is denounced as an abomination in Leviticus while stealing the shrimp from your plate at Red Lobster. I don't accept the argument in either case on principle - but if you're going to make them, live by them. That said -
Yeah - I think it's not only feasible, but econommically inevitable that the government can (with the consent of a majority of the governed) do some things better than private business or private individuals.
It's not that I am a sweet guy, or have guilt issues, or that I'm a lazy bum that (directly) benefits.
A: It is axiomatic to me that some portion of my good fortune was generated by by hard work, and some by luck. Since this perforce means that with a little luck others that have worked hard can do as well as I, energy spent assisting others is not wasted - I can, in effect, be their luck, if they will supply the hard work.
B: I take it as an axiom that doing so indirectly benefits me.
C: I believe (And feel I have shown the logical underpinnings of this belief) that there are ways of helping others that are most efficiently done by the government, simply because this releases others to concentrate on the commercial endeavors they do best at.
Taken as a whole - yes, it's an argument for socialism and welfare. Obviously there are economic arguments to be had about exactly when it is to our benefit as citizens to have the government institute a given policy - there are things that benefit society as a whole which are not efficiently done by the government, and certainly anything that doesn't benefit society as a whole is outside government purview.
But - to rationally disagree with socialism as a principle (Not individual policies), I think you have to rationally debunk one or more of those premises. I think the first two are self-evident, the third is not self evident but follows from the simple principle of competitive advantage.
So I would certainly enjoy hearing of any counterarguments.
Jonnan
