My own problem with socialism is that it divides people into groups and then pits them against each other. Usually this is done by claiming one group is a victim of something terrible - racism, bigotry, chauvinism, etc. The government will claim that they are the only ones that can protect these victims and then march in with their solutions. Usually these solutions involve higher taxation. Even when the government does manage to construct a temporary solution, the long-term consequence is even worse. An example of this would be our social security system. It was only meant to provide partial help for the aging and has now been redefined as an entitlement.
Well i suppose i would first counter that every system pits people against one another. Certainly to use a contemporary example, people have very strong feelings against immigration for an economic reason, that essentially pits them against someone else, be it rational or not. Likewise, i think if we are honest, we can fairly say, our society does not serve everyone equally. Even with the best of intentions, there are certain advantages that being born into some portions of society have. Admittedly yes, solutions often are going to come or at least be involved with higher taxation. Albeit a different issue, but i think theres some simplistic sense behind the idea, that if you do want social change, someone is going to have to pay for it. Although i may agree to an extent on the nature of social security, i think the fact that it was there in many ways was part of an assurance that led to some very productive generations in the US. Social programs are difficult to analyze because they do tend to hit so many different groups different ways. Does this mean we should forego them, i should think not.
Coming soon - universal health care whether you want it or not. The uninsured are going to be viewed as victims that need to be protected. Just wait until that day happens. The government will start demanding you eat healthier foods and exercise more in order for them to cut costs. Yeah, we pay a lot of health care in this country, but we also are living longer as a result.
Ill admit there are certainly some areas of concern with the proposed healthcare plans that we have as of right now. But to be honest, we must admit there is an area that needs to be fixed. Tens of millions of people in our country right now simply do not have access to healthcare. In a society as wealthy as ours, that should be unacceptable. In so many ways economic success over the long term is dependent on things like education and health....which are things that we can help to improve. The fact that we dont do such things, and then are surprised when people struggle to move up the ladder so to speak, is rather distressing. Although yes, we still need to find the solution that will allow the best healthcare possible, i struggle to understand why we feel the free market will come up with these solutions, when clearly thus far it has not.
My point is that government can not meet the expectations of whatever "service" they say they will provide to the masses, no matter how well intentioned.
This may very well be true. However, i think much of recent history teases out the notion that the free market, left to primarily its own devices, does not accomplish these things on their own either. If we choose not to do these things i suppose that is one thing, but if we are trying to promote change for the social embetterment of our population, it might be fair to suggest changes have to in some part come from government mediation. They frequently have throughout history, even if they havent always been of optimal effciency or lowest cost.
