In previous posts, I arrived at the conclusion that the only reasonable motivation is the seeking of my own personal fulfillment. If this is true, and I can see no other reasonable alternative, then this limits the function of government. Government must infringe on personal liberty as little as possible, so that individuals have the maximum possible latitude for seeking their own personal fulfillment, in whatever way they may choose to do so. It is not reasonable that some people should make laws inhibiting the freedom of others to seek their own fulfillment, since it is only reasonable that each person should seek his/her own fulfillment.
Government may, and should, prevent any person from inhibiting the freedom of another. That is, government should punish murder and fraud and the like. That is because these are actions of one individual against another’s liberty, and it is reasonable that groups of individuals should band together to protect their own liberty. However, government should not force anyone to do something against their will, unless that action would infringe on another’s liberty. This principle rules out socialism, since that system limits the freedom of individuals from pursuing their own happiness in whatever way they may choose. The independent acquisition of property and wealth by one’s own honest labor does not infringe on the liberty of others. Therefore, it is unreasonable for a government to inhibit such activity. If a government does inhibit such activity, then that government has acted unreasonably in inhibiting the freedom of the person who sought the wealth. This includes the redistribution of wealth through taxes that fund government welfare programs and the like. Such programs are a form of legalized plunder, as Bastiat asserts.
So, socialism is fundamentally flawed. But is also flawed for pragmatic reasons. Let’s assume that the highest values for man are comfort, peace, prosperity, and the absence of suffering. In other words, let’s assume that this is the goal of society. This view seems prevalent in the modern socialist movement, and yet socialism is not the best way to achieve these values. One only has to look at the fallen USSR and China. Socialism fails because it clashes with human nature. Human beings are not bees in a beehive, or ants in an ant hill. We are individuals and function as such. The so-called “common good” and slogans like “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is for bees and ants, not men. as Henry Grady Weaver put it:
1. Only an individual human being can generate human energy.
2. Only an individual human being can control the energy he generates.
Humans are not motivated to excellence by “the good of humanity”, and neither should they be. As I have discussed in previous posts, the only reasonable motivation for a human is his or her own personal fulfillment. It may sound reasonable that human society as a whole should seek its own fulfillment, but I am not society as a whole, and the question is: why should I or anyone else do anything at all? The answer can only be: because it will increase your sense of fulfillment.
If you leave people free to work toward their own goals and for their own benefit, then they will produce more goods and innovations, and their society will prosper and progress. The success of such a system has been demonstrated in the United States since the revolution.
So, even if comfort, peace, prosperity, and the absence of suffering are the highest values, as socialism seems to assert, socialism fails. But in fact, these are not the highest values. Socialism subjugates other values, such as freedom and individual responsibility, to the values of comfort and peace. The whole reason behind the equal distribution of wealth is to achieve the greatest “good” for the greatest number, where “good” is defined as physical comfort. Unfortunately, the redistribution of wealth is immoral. It steals from one to give to another. In reality, members of socialist societies are stealing from one another. In addition, it is impossible to ensure that everyone’s needs are “taken care of” without infringing on their personal freedom and responsibility. The redistribution of wealth infringes the responsibility of the individual to control his or her own destiny. It also infringes on his or her ability to find fulfillment in charity.
Inevitably, socialism also results in a greater number or restrictions and laws. For example, if the government is paying for health care, then the government must restrict the activities of humans that may be harmful, such as smoking and eating “trans fats”. It’s like a parent child relationship: if I am responsible for my child’s welfare, then I have to dictate his diet and even his leisure activities, at least to a certain extent.
Socialism robs individuals of their opportunity to experience the highest values: love, honor, compassion, justice, etc., because these values must be experienced as the result of free individual action, which is inhibited under the socialist regime.
It is not physical comfort that gives life meaning. There is a reason for the saying “Live Free or Die.” As Patrick Henry famously articulated it:
Or take the example of Viktor Frankl and others in the concentration camps. If physical comfort, or even length of life itself gives life meaning, then life’s meaning is gone in the concentration camps. But this is not the case. Full life comes from life lived rightly.
[...] 1. Most Americans don’t know how to think. As a high school teacher, I can tell you that this problem is getting worse. People do not know how to reason. They cannot see that socialism is unreasonable. [...]
[...] one more reason that socialism is unreasonable–it removes the potential for the personal fulfillment that comes from the free exercise of [...]
[...] one more reason that socialism is unreasonable–it removes the potential for the personal fulfillment that comes from the free exercise of [...]
[...] prosperity, and as we will see, socialism is the answer. Unfortunately, even if material prosperity were the highest goal, socialism is not teh best path to that goal. An… Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Obama’s Full Acceptance SpeechText of Barack [...]
[...] consequences as the liberals blindly push our once great country into historically proven and logically obvious error. But when our great country lies in a heap, or fades away, blending in with a multitude of [...]
[...] So, a mother who makes the choice to engage in a time-intensive career is making a sacrifice, and so is her husband. One might argue that such a sacrifice is “worth it”, that a lesser good for their children is worth a greater good for many people. of course, this would be the position of the socialist, but socialism is unreasonable. [...]