OK, it's really just one question, and not exactly a snappy answer--more kind of rambling, actually--but I like the title, so I'm keeping it for now.
What follows below is a crosspost from something I wrote in the Rants and Raves section of the Hartford CraigsList a while back, in response to an admittedly ignorant question about Socialism in Europe. A few days after I wrote it, I saw fit to share it here as a comment in a diary about Europe and Socialism. Another commenter suggested that I reprint the comment as a diary, so here it is.
The OP's question is block quoted below the fold. My response appears below that.
Okay, I admit that I am somewhat ignorant (meaning 'uniformed', not 'stupid' for you really ignorant folks out there). And I'd like your opinion/insight if you know more or better than I do.
Why is Socialism bad? (1), Sky-high taxes (60 - 80%?) and (2), lots more government control of even the smallest aspects of our lives and the resulting poor quality of goods and inefficient service that governement provides. Anything else?
I grew up knowing that Communism was Hell on Earth, Socialism wasn't much better, and Capitalism is the best way to set up a society. The beauty of Capitalism is that it acknowledges a basic human trait-- self interest -- and harnesses it for the good of all. When we are all working to maximize our own situation we elevate the whole society. Socialism and Capitalism are social engineered utopias that only work in theory. In actual practice they fail because they're based on something other than human nature. I do understand why power-hungary authority figures like the hell out of them though.
There's no doubt in my mind that Communism is a crock of crap. I can't figure how any group would fall for that load of bunk, unless they are so shit-for-brained and unmotivated that they'll put up with any shitty situation just so they don't have to do for themselves.
But I'm not so sure about Socialism. I've never been to Europe where it supposedly is "working." I've heard of places with 35 hour work weeks and mandatory 5 weeks of vacation per year for every citizen; is that correct? What is the "cost" that people end up paying to have such work-less lives? It's like whole countries of union workers. How are they not bankrupt? Or are they? Do they ever invent anything new? Is European Socialism possible in part because we Americans are busting our asses paying for THEIR national defense in addition to our own?
I do know one thing. As a potential small business entrepreneur, I'm a lot more likely to take a risk and start a business that might end up creating a lot of value to society and employing some people if I expect to keep most of the money I make from doing it. If I have to shell out 50% or more in taxes right off the bat, forget it. I either won't do it, or I'll do it under the table, another hallmark of Socialism and Communism, I suspect
My response:
-I'm no expert myself, but here's an opinion: The best way cannot be either pure capitalism or pure socialism, but a blend of both so that those who have good ideas and are willing to work hard can get ahead, but there should also be a social safety net so that poor people don't have to starve and freeze to death, either.
Since when is a 30-80% income tax "Socialism", anyway? The top marginal income tax in the 1950's in the U.S. was over 90%, and the president was Eisenhower, a Republican. Rich people still managed to be rich and live very well. None of them fled the country and we did not go bankrupt. When Republicans talk about taxes, they always throw around the top tax rate as if that's what everybody pays. It simply isn't so. In a progressive system, only the richest are required to pay the top rates. Would you rather earn $10,000 and pay $1,000 in taxes, $100,000 and $20,000, or $1,000,000 and $300,000 in taxes? If someone gets paid a Billion a year and paid even 90%, that would still leave them with $100 million a year. You're telling me that $100 million in ONE YEAR is not enough for anyone to live on? Puh-lease!
As for gov't control of our lives, it's not the "socialist" liberal Democrats who are telling us to whom we can and cannot marry, is it? for that matter, the constitution requires the gov't to respect and protect your freedom, while the tenets of capitalism contain no such obligations. The bill of rights applies to the gov't, but where is your freedom of speech in the workplace? Say something that pisses off your boss and you're fired. The 2nd amendment does NOT apply at your job--many employers do and ALL can, if they like, ban the possession of guns in the workplace. And you said goodbye to protection of privacy while on their property, too.
I myself am a little confused by folks who rightly distrust Big Government, but put some sort of sad and naive faith in the good intentions and competence of Big Business.
The Founding Fathers set up a government of co-equal branches with checks and balances so that no one faction could get too strong. This is not true of Big Business. The natural result of unrestrained capitalism is the Monopoly, as we saw in the late 19th century. What business and government DO have in common is that both are human institutions, and both are only as good or bad as the people who make them up. Government has no monopoly on incompetence--- or else why do you think the Pointy-Haired-Boss character from Dilbert is so recognized
and believable by people who work in business? You might not trust Uncle Sam, but do you really want Catbert running your life?
I haven't been to Europe yet either, but my impression is that they seem to do OK with the system they have, and they make good stuff. Driven a Porsche lately? They're made in "socialist" Germany, you know, where they get 5 weeks off and "socialist" healthcare. Another thing about Europe, I heard that the CEOs there make considerably less and are taxed much more than rich people here, yet, oddly, we don't see hordes of German, French, and Swedish entrepreneurs fleeing to the free-market havens of Mississipi and Alabama. Can anyone tell me why that might be? On the other hand, I often wonder why the Libertarians here don't all emigrate to the low-tax, small government utopia that is Somalia. If they think they've got what it takes to make it in a REAL unregulated market, why don't they prove it?
We might not like government regulations, but some of them might be pretty good. The capitalist watchword is "Let the buyer beware", but word of mouth is pretty thin protection from kids' toys covered in Lead paint, no? Or what about the poisoned pet food from China? Tell me again how "harnessing" greed by unregulating it works out for the "good of all", please. I say to anyone who believes that stripping the government of the power to regulate business for the good of workers, consumers, and the environment is the way to go, then my plan is to get rich by opening a slaughterhouse/toxic waste dump/tire burning plant directly upwind of them. And since I'm such a force for good, I'll even hire their small children to work for me for 80 hrs a week!
I myself do not contend that we should do away with the profit motive entirely, but there are some areas where "socialism" is better for all. Suppose that protection from fire and criminals were completely privatized and paid for the way we pay for our health care, for instance. When your house is burning down, or a rapist is breaking through your door, do you really want to call 911 and hear "What is your account number?" and "Your call is important to us, please stay on the line" for 40 minutes until Sanjay in Mumbai takes finally your call, only to tell you that you're not covered for your emergency? And how much do you suppose you'd be paying Sanjay's employers? Remember that the for-profit health insurance companies are in business not to pay your doctor, but for the sole purpose of making a profit. And the ONLY way they can make a profit is by NOT paying your doctor!How much do you think it would cost you to drive to work everyday if the owners of the private roads you were driving on insisted on getting a 40% return on investment after paying out billions for advertising and billions more in CEOverpay?
I do totally agree that it is long past time that we stop paying for the military protection of Europe, Korea, and Japan, especially as we've built these countries up over the last 60+ years from dependents to friends to competitors. Of course, if we citizens were to direct our govt to reduce "defense" spending, who do you think would start howling and moaning--the capitalist Republicans, whose friends, contributors, and clients in the arms industry depend on "socialist" tax dollars, or the "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats?
A final thought about the inefficiency of government: As stated above, government can only be as good or bad as the human beings who compose it. As voters in a free democracy, it is up to us to choose our own government, a rare and unique privilege not shared by the overwhelming majority of people throughout history. It was conservative icon Ronald Reagan (who,incidentally, was famous for getting caught secretly selling arms to terrorists after publicly proclaiming to the contrary) who said that government is "the problem, not the solution", and for the last thirty years his followers have done their all to elect politicians who loathe the very notion of government.
Would you hire a Vegan to run your steakhouse?