Hope and Safety
Capitalism and Socialism
Capitalism offers hope. If you work, you can make a living, perhaps improve your life, perhaps even get wealthy, maybe leave a better life for your children.
Socialism offers safety. If misfortune befalls you, society will take care of you.
The majority of thought, that I’ve seen, is that these are mutually exclusive approaches to government and society. Perhaps at least they compete with each other, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.
Perhaps a lot of the bias against socialism here in the USA is because of a long history of corrupt, poorly designed and poorly managed social programs. It seems to me that 99% of our social programs are designed to make the program creators and those paying for the programs “feel good” but do a terrible job of actually helping those that need help.
Capitalism is also associated with freedom. We make our own choices and determine our own fates. Sometimes this can be a trap as many people get stuck trying to work hard to advance their lives only to find that some government evil, like inflation, is frustrating their efforts to get ahead.
For a moment, I’d like my readers to consider that capitalism and socialism don’t need to be an extreme choice. The real world usually blends a combination of the two. So when we say we don’t want socialism, we actually mean we want less socialism.
Observing the USA over the past fifty years or so, we have a patchwork of social programs. Tons of money is spent, a huge number of people are “employed” to administer the programs, but most of those in need simply curse in frustration at the bureaucracy.
It’s quite apparent that our situation is not improving. The poor struggle with terrible choices and generally feel they have no choice (no freedom, no hope), the middle are being dragged down such that they feel like they have become the poor, the wealthy continue thinking everything is wonderful but “Gee, why don’t we get a bigger tax deduction for buying a yacht?”
Is there room and hope for improvement? Yes, but only when we admit we need to take a step back and make some major changes. Social Security won’t be fixed by cutting benefits a little or increasing benefits a little. Tax deductions for having a child don’t help those that don’t pay taxes! Children won’t be protected by “Child Protection Services”.
These programs are not completely ineffective. They do help many people. But is the help they provide solving the problems or just a token gesture? Is the burden of funding these programs doing more harm than good?
Well extremes are never good no matter for which side, agreed. How much can we fund locally? If we don’t have government be in charge of paying for street repair or the fire department, would the community pay for it and maintain it? What about bigger infrastructure, like bridges and tunnels? What about that old idea where you decide which bucket to put your taxes in? Perhaps, out of 100%, I put 20% into health care, 20% into education, 20% infrastructure, 20% into social services and the last 20%, the government chooses where it’ll go. Let’s see how many wars get started if they have to bake cupcakes to raise money for warheads. This is all arbitrary, but Americans don’t get angry enough about how much of our taxes go towards killing innocent people abroad.
Social welfare spending gets confounded by emotions. Well wishing (raise your taxes type) see themselves as morally superior because they’re in support of a broader wider, deeper net for society. A more moderate mindset espouses a hand up instead of a handout approach. The problem with both of these are they lead to bigger government. Personally, I never feel warm and fuzzy about writing a check for my taxes. It does feel mighty fine to volunteer at the veterans home cookout, to support a neighbor through a crisis, or donate to a local charity. If only there were a way to incentive being a good charitable human being.