{"id":839,"date":"2009-06-13T09:18:14","date_gmt":"2009-06-13T16:18:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.harmonicminer.com\/wordpress\/?p=839"},"modified":"2009-06-13T09:18:42","modified_gmt":"2009-06-13T16:18:42","slug":"the-spiritual-poverty-of-socialism-part-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.harmonicminer.com\/wordpress\/2009\/06\/13\/the-spiritual-poverty-of-socialism-part-iii\/","title":{"rendered":"The Spiritual Poverty of Socialism? Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

The previous post in this series is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Socialism, for its very existence, depends on powers of the state to make people do things they would not otherwise do (not merely to make them refrain from doing things that harm or threaten specific individuals), in order to achieve goals (outcomes) that seem good to the socialist.\u00a0 In this sense, all socialists are statists.<\/p>\n

I realize that the definition I gave of “socialism”<\/a> in the previous post is not the textbook one.\u00a0 That’s because it is not an ideological definition from the point of view of economic or political theory.\u00a0 It is an operational one, since no significant strand of socialism avoids the attempt to disconnect outcomes for individuals from the efforts made BY those individuals, and to do so with money and other resources taken in the form of taxes, fees, restrictions, regulations, and sometimes outright confiscation, by the state<\/strong>.\u00a0 Some will cavil that “socialism” requires “state ownership of the means of production.”\u00a0 See the previous post in the series<\/a> for discussion about why that is not a useful standard.<\/p>\n

On the continuum of socialism (as operationally defined above), nearly every government\/economic system has *some* element of socialism\/statism.\u00a0\u00a0 The very nature of government involves some degree of collective action towards common goals, which will dilute the effect of any given individual’s participation on the outcome for that individual.\u00a0 It is a matter of degree, and context.<\/p>\n

Let’s start with the easy, noncontroversial stuff.\u00a0 Public funding of roads is socialist.\u00a0 So are government funded militaries, court systems, police and fire fighting agencies, schools, etc.\u00a0\u00a0 While extreme free market fans may theorize otherwise, these are things which are commonly conceived to be the province of government, even though government may execute them via private parties.\u00a0 That is, governments usually hire private contractors to build roads (though cities often have a “roads department” for minor repairs).\u00a0 On the other hand, judges, police, and fire fighters are usually government employees.\u00a0 Oddly, K-12 teachers are either public employees in publicly funded schools, or private employees in privately funded schools, while college and university professors may be employed by private or public institutions, and the private ones often receive a good deal of government money, at least in the form of student financial aid.<\/p>\n

What’s characteristic about all of these services (with the possible exception of schools) is that virtually everyone uses them at one time or another, in one way or another, and they are services that no individual COULD provide privately<\/em>.\u00a0 That is, no one could afford to build a road from New York to Los Angeles.\u00a0 Who could afford to maintain their own private police force, court and prison system, just in case they needed it, or keep a fire department standing by locally, just in case?\u00a0 Maybe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but that’s about it.\u00a0 And, in any case, no one would want ANY private person to have judicial powers, the complete panoply of police powers, etc.\u00a0 Nor would we want any private person, no matter how wealthy, to be able to decide just where roads would be built.<\/p>\n

So, the defining characteristics of “socialist” policies and programs that virtually everyone will accept are:<\/p>\n

1)\u00a0 They provide services that virtually no person could supply for themselves.<\/p>\n

And,<\/p>\n

2)\u00a0 They provide services that would require a person to have so much personal power that we would not trust anyone to possess it.<\/p>\n

Note that libertarians, radical free market believers, etc., may even complain about these.\u00a0 But in general, most people who are suspicious of “socialism” — being suspicious of the statism in requires — will not complain too much about about these kinds of things.\u00a0 Call it “socialism lite.”<\/p>\n

These are areas where reasonable people can disagree.\u00a0 How much should the state be involved in providing utilities?\u00a0 How much should the state be involved in determining which cars are safe to drive?\u00a0 What levels of risk are acceptable?\u00a0 Any brief review of history of such things will reveal that various attitudes have existed, though the trend towards more and more statism in these areas is clear.\u00a0 In any case, these are essentially pragmatic matters.\u00a0 What will work best?\u00a0 What will cost the public least, for the most benefit?<\/p>\n

It is certainly not a “spiritual challenge” to seek or accept clean water delivered by a publicly owned utility with state supervision and management.<\/p>\n

But, as we will see, greater levels of socialism\/statism are clearly dangerous to the spritual health of the person, particularly those that intrude into matters that individuals ARE competent to deal with themselves, and which do not require the exercise of great personal power on the part of the individual.<\/p>\n

That will be the topic of the next post in this series.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>