You have probably noticed as you read my blog that I am not the most avid supporter of socialism. That’s right. I am against socialism in government.
For those of you who missed my definition of socialism in a comment I wrote, here it is:
Socialism is a system of government and economics similar, but not identical to communism. Marx said that socialism is the step in between capitalism and communism. Socialism says that the state must take care of everyone's needs and provide all services (e.g. welfare, education, medicare) In the extreme; it means that all goods produced are shared with everyone else (e.g. Jamestown, in 1607).
Here's Webster's definition: "(1) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (2) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. (3) A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. (4) A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
However there is one case when socialism can be beneficial: Emergencies.
In WWII, the aircraft companies of America joined together in a union. They shared ideas and concepts, plans and blueprints, and leaders and workers. This corporation worked well. It accomplished the needs of the country for combat aircraft during the war. European countries also nationalized industries during the war.
There have been other instances of governmental and corporational socialism in times of extreme need.
These provisions work well in the short term. However in the long run, they are not efficient and can sometimes bring ruin.
2 comments:
There are of course many hybrids.
Here is the fundamental question though -
As human beings have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, do they also have the right to safe housing, adequate nutrition, and medically necessary health care?
Yes, there are many forms and degrees of socialism out there.
My answer to that question would be: "Yes, humans do have those rights. The government should make sure that those rights are not infringed by anyone else. However government should not be the one who administers the last three to everyone. Those needs should be taken care of by charity, forward planning, insurance, etc. that does not involve government being the nanny of the populace.
However, like I said, in emergencies like when people don't have any insurance and don't have a high income; they should be able to file forms as a last ditch effort to pay the hospital bill. After a while, they should pay the money back, or when they die, the government should take it out of their estate. Not an estate tax, just a payment for past services. What I just described (with a few additions) is MediCal, a program in California.
Post a Comment