February 17, 2008
Socialism Does Not Work. Part 2.
Comments from my last post on this topic lead me to want to make another point on this.
Socialists often argue that the failure of their systems resulting from excess consumption is due to selfish, greedy people trying to get more than they actually "need" from the system and giving less than they really can produce.
I've actually heard Canadians complain about this with regard to their beleaguered national health care system.
There are several problems with this argument, not the least of which is the fact that "need" is an extremely vague standard to objectively quantify. But the more fundamental problem is the fact that socialistic systems cannot meet even the most basic needs of its participants because failure is a critical aspect of progress.
By "failure," I mean that the old must give way to the new, the inefficient is driven to extinction by the more efficient. When light bulbs were invented, candle makers were steadily driven out of business.
Socialists prefer to argue that they would embrace new technologies and move forward with the march of civilization, but this doesn't happen. Their system lacks an incentive for advancement and even if it didn't, there isn't a way to maintain both candle makers and light bulb makers. The candle makers have to get new jobs. Who assesses each individual's ability and skill and reassigns them to the greatest benefit of the system? Picture that across every line of business there is.
This is why bureaucracy multiplies so rapidly in these systems, but the bottom line is an economic resistance to change and advancement.
I've been deliberately avoiding the moral arguments against socialism in all this, because I want to make it abundantly clear: socialism is not merely immoral, it is also woefully impractical. It would be more amusing to try to implement a perpetual motion machine.
Socialists often argue that the failure of their systems resulting from excess consumption is due to selfish, greedy people trying to get more than they actually "need" from the system and giving less than they really can produce.
I've actually heard Canadians complain about this with regard to their beleaguered national health care system.
There are several problems with this argument, not the least of which is the fact that "need" is an extremely vague standard to objectively quantify. But the more fundamental problem is the fact that socialistic systems cannot meet even the most basic needs of its participants because failure is a critical aspect of progress.
By "failure," I mean that the old must give way to the new, the inefficient is driven to extinction by the more efficient. When light bulbs were invented, candle makers were steadily driven out of business.
Socialists prefer to argue that they would embrace new technologies and move forward with the march of civilization, but this doesn't happen. Their system lacks an incentive for advancement and even if it didn't, there isn't a way to maintain both candle makers and light bulb makers. The candle makers have to get new jobs. Who assesses each individual's ability and skill and reassigns them to the greatest benefit of the system? Picture that across every line of business there is.
This is why bureaucracy multiplies so rapidly in these systems, but the bottom line is an economic resistance to change and advancement.
I've been deliberately avoiding the moral arguments against socialism in all this, because I want to make it abundantly clear: socialism is not merely immoral, it is also woefully impractical. It would be more amusing to try to implement a perpetual motion machine.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:56 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Category: Money, Money, Money!
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
An example of its impracticality from a Canadian: I September, my doctor decided I needed an MRI. I was able to get it last week, five months later. Further, private MRI clinics are outlawed in my province -- that would mean "rich" people could get better care, you see -- so even if I had been willing to pay (on top of the taxes taken from me to support socialized healthcare), I couldn't have. If I had gone across the border to Buffalo, however, I could have had the test within days.
Posted by: Mark Wickens at February 17, 2008 12:43 PM (G6Zrh)
2
But Mark, the "rich" can get better care--across the border. I've also read of many other middle-class families mortgaging their homes to get immediate care across the border too.
America's proximity is probably one of the major reason's why Canada's healthcare system has not totally collapsed yet. Canadians don't put as much pressure on their politicians when they have a substitute across the border. Canada's doctors just move south and its citizens just cross the border when they feel Canada's system is inadequate.
America's proximity is probably one of the major reason's why Canada's healthcare system has not totally collapsed yet. Canadians don't put as much pressure on their politicians when they have a substitute across the border. Canada's doctors just move south and its citizens just cross the border when they feel Canada's system is inadequate.
Posted by: Tom Rexton at February 17, 2008 04:20 PM (lRQG+)
3
Provincial Governments outlawing private MRI clinics?!!! That is one of the most insane, immoral examples of government meddling I have ever heard of!!!
Posted by: Tiberius at February 17, 2008 04:20 PM (/pNMe)
4
Oh, my, yes, that Canadian outlaw on private health care is a very real problem. There is a video up on it over at Galileo Blogs - and Noodlefood had it up about 6 months ago or so (or maybe it was Rule of Reason or The Dougout? Sorry whoever!).
Flib, you're more right than you might even realize as concerns "need." In fact, it is a bit of an anti-concept. I had a debate once where someone tried to start with the socialist position and its use of "need," but I insisted that he define it first. In the end, he couldn't define it and had to concede my point.
It's still up somewhere on the discussion boards near my blog, although where exactly escapes me at present.
Flib, you're more right than you might even realize as concerns "need." In fact, it is a bit of an anti-concept. I had a debate once where someone tried to start with the socialist position and its use of "need," but I insisted that he define it first. In the end, he couldn't define it and had to concede my point.
It's still up somewhere on the discussion boards near my blog, although where exactly escapes me at present.
Posted by: Inspector at February 17, 2008 06:45 PM (pb3LL)
5
But Mark, the "rich" can get better care--across the border.
Yes -- but I'm waiting for that to be outlawed, too. In fact, abck in the fall I was talking with a friend and mentioned I was considering going to a US clinic and he actually asked, a bit incredulous, "Is that legal?!" So you see the mindset of Canadians is such that it probably wouldn't cause mass protest.
Yes -- but I'm waiting for that to be outlawed, too. In fact, abck in the fall I was talking with a friend and mentioned I was considering going to a US clinic and he actually asked, a bit incredulous, "Is that legal?!" So you see the mindset of Canadians is such that it probably wouldn't cause mass protest.
Posted by: Mark Wickens at February 17, 2008 10:20 PM (G6Zrh)
6
Maybe we could trade you some x-rays for some prescription meds.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at February 17, 2008 10:23 PM (8/6kK)
7
There is also the uglier aspect of socialist movements and that is, in the end, to keep us all primitive, to ignore any possible advancements, so that we are all equally miserable (and this is the height of civilization to these people). The environmentalists are, of course, the most obvious, but I think all socialist movements have an aspect of this.
Posted by: Marnee at February 18, 2008 03:39 PM (/lqv4)
8
You are certainly right about that.
But I tire of people not realizing that this is a "mechanical" aspect of socialism and not merely a moral objective on the part of socialists.
By "mechanical" I just mean that it is the nature of socialism to produce that result, much as flinging raw eggs around the kitchen results in a mess.
I avoided moral evaluations of socialism itself in these posts because I wanted to highlight that aspect of the system for people who believe that anyone could innocently claim to support socialism. If you have half a brain and know anything about economics, you can see this result.
Socialism does not work. (And it's also evil to its core.)
But I tire of people not realizing that this is a "mechanical" aspect of socialism and not merely a moral objective on the part of socialists.
By "mechanical" I just mean that it is the nature of socialism to produce that result, much as flinging raw eggs around the kitchen results in a mess.
I avoided moral evaluations of socialism itself in these posts because I wanted to highlight that aspect of the system for people who believe that anyone could innocently claim to support socialism. If you have half a brain and know anything about economics, you can see this result.
Socialism does not work. (And it's also evil to its core.)
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at February 18, 2008 07:06 PM (ErOeR)
34kb generated in 0.0578 seconds; 71 queries returned 201 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
