Central Planning (The Nanny State) vs. Free Enterprise (cont.)
Central Planning (The Nanny State) vs. Free Enterprise (cont.)
By
Ken Eliasberg
In continuing with the socialism vs. capitalism discussion, I want to make a couple of points clear. First, and foremost, I am making the case for limited government (a case which I believe is inherent in our founding); I am not making the case for no government. This discussion is not about anarchy vs. tyranny; it is about what I believe to be the inherent role of government, i.e. one confined pretty much to the very basic role of providing security on a national, state, and local level. Second, I am not suggesting that the private sector functions perfectly. Indeed, the private sector certainly contributed to the difficulties that we are currently experiencing (although I hasten to point out that here too, the government played a pivotal, if not controlling, role in our current economic meltdown; you may not have gotten that impression from the analysis of my former left-wing colleague in this paper who blamed everything on deregulation (even thoughit was the government doing the “deregulating”)).
What I am saying is that both systems, private and public, look to human beings to carry out their respective functions, and, since human beings are inherently imperfect, each system will be exposed to those imperfections. The difference is that the private sector has a self-correcting mechanism, i.e. competition and the market place; the public sector has none (except to provide more of the very support which led to the failure in the first place). In the private sector, if you fail, you lose and typically you leave. In the public sector, if you lose, you receive additional support. In short, the public system rewards failure; the private sector punishes it. And, by the way, the argument advanced for continuing to support these failing endeavors is the same argument advanced by those who support socialism (or progressivism, or liberalism, or whatever the left-wing “ism” de jour might be at the time), i.e. we had the right idea; we just had the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong people in charge, the wrong amount of capital or effort, etc., etc. No, you had the wrong idea!!!
With respect to my fundamental problem with socialism and, more to the point, why I am against it — BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK, HAS NOT WORKED, WILL NOT WORK, AND CANNOT WORK!!! Conversely, capitalism does work, and has worked magnificently for us as Americans. Is it perfect? Of course not! Capitalism can bankrupt you, while providing prospects
for recovery. Socialism will bankrupt you, while providing you with no means of
recovery.
On a purely monetary basis, socialism might be viewed as something in the nature of a Robin Hood approach to economics, i.e., steal from the rich to give to the poor (a noble enough way in which to describe grand larceny). Or, in geopolitical terms, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (no matter how much the person in need had to do with his being put in a position of need). Wealth leveling, in the eyes of the left, is necessary to banish life’s grand inequities. Oh, by the way, it only works for the left as long as it’s not their wealth that you seek to level. (A very brief look into the heart of the left’s real design might be gleaned from the fact that at least 6 of Obama’s high level appointments had not paid their taxes. If they so strongly believe in this philosophy of wealth redistribution, I would think that they would be falling all over themselves to pay their taxes. I won’t even bother to elaborate on what the situation would be like if we had a fraction of these tax cheats being Republicans. If that were the case, it would be on the front page of every major newspaper for weeks on end; as it is, little, if anything, is made of it).
And socialism not only results in economic failure, it fails in a much more fundamental way — it destroys excellence, the standard that America has, throughout its existence, struggled to maintain. Why, or rather how, does it do this?
By destroying incentives to prosper! By suggesting that we are all equal, which, of course, we are not, it makes it almost unsavory to be different, to want to better your circumstances; in short, to want to get ahead. It also frowns on ambition by labeling it greed. The point is brought home nicely in a pair of columns by Dennis Prager, the first, entitled Socialism Makes People Worse appeared in Real Clear Politics on March 21, 2006; the second, entitled Socialism and Secularism Suck Vitality Out of Society, which appeared at townhall.com on May 12, 2009. Prager points to Europe, using that continent’seconomic and spiritual deterioration, to demonstrate the concomitant cultural deterioration that those failures produced. Perhaps the best, and certainly the most succinct, comment on this topic was made by Victor Davis Hanson (a professor and a columnist for whom I have the greatest respect) in a tangential reference he made while discussing the backward mentality of the Palestinians in a column entitled EndemicMadness at frontpagemag.com on June 25, 2007. Hanson observed:
“ Religious fundamentalism translates into rote prayers in madrassas
while those outside the Middle East master science and engineering.
Without a transparent capitalist system — antithetical to both Shariah
(Muslim law) and state-run economies — initiative is never rewarded.
Corruption is. (emphasis supplied)
On just a polititical basis, the bottom line for me is quite simple; while capitalism may from time to time jump the tracks (typically with a good deal of help from government), government never ever gets on the tracks to begin with! (to be continued).