In Part 1 we looked at the importance of being able to correctly define the concepts of Capitalism and Socialism and in Part 2 we defined it. We also looked at the key difference between the two; namely that Capitalism is based on cooperation (voluntary trade) and Socialism is based on force.
Most people do not understand the force part of Socialism. They think it is people working in cooperation with one another, gladly and willingly lending a hand in order to provide equal results for all. Remember Karl Marx’ famous dictum: “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need.”
Lovely statement, isn’t it? Can’t you just picture all of these willing people lovingly sacrificing what they’ve produced and gladly handing it over to people they don’t know? Actually, there is a name for it when it is done willingly? It’s called charity. When done by force, it’s called Socialism. And, it doesn’t work. Never has, never will. And, the reason it won’t is based on human principles of action.
It’s like the person who studies hard all semester long while a classmate he doesn’t know sluffs off and parties. Our first student receives an A. The second student receives and F. Would you ever (and, please take this seriously, it is indeed an important question) . . . would you ever dare suggest that the first student take a C so that the second statement could also get a C? After all, everyone should receive equally, right? From everyone according to his ability (which includes effort) to everyone according to their need?
Same thing. People don’t like being forced to give up the fruits of their labor, and Socialism is exactly what we just witnessed in our make-believe classroom in the above example.
Good, well-meaning people, can argue between Capitalism and Socialism (any program based on government force). They can share their views, thoughts and opinions regarding how much force by government is needed to make a country work and to help people who cannot help themselves…That’s fine.
However, for the debate itself to be based on a correct premise, it must — it must — be acknowledged that Socialism IS based on force. Even the good that a government program might do better than could charity and the free market; it must be acknowledged and agreed upon that the program itself is based on force since the individual does not have a choice in the matter. Without that acknowledgement, there is not true premise for the discussion.
In a free (Capitalist) Society, you own your own life; you own yourself. In a Socialist Society, the government owns you and your life. Are you seeing the difference? It doesn’t matter that — in some instances, some person in some division of the government may know more than you about might be best in a certain area of your life. The government owns you and they own your children. The decisions are theirs, and you are powerless to resist. And, you are powerless to resist because it is backed by force. They ultimately decide where you can go and what you can do. Any individual rights you may have in such a society are given to you BY that government.
This is the opposite of a free society where you are free to make your own mistakes (and grow as a person) and reap the benefits of the lessons you learn. In this free society, you have all rights that are not expressly forbidden by the Constitution (see Amendment 9 in the Bill of Rights), and any powers that the government has over its citizens are GRANTED (not given) by the people, and can (theoretically) be reclaimed at any time. Freedom and liberty versus force.
Obviously, as a believer in Capitalism and an opponent of Socialism, I’ll suggest that government’s functions should be severely limited. Here is my Libertarian Creed, which can ONLY happen in a Capitalistic society (yes, individual liberty and Capitalism go hand-in-hand. When one of them is not there, neither is the other, despite appearances to the contrary):
“You have the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit,
providing that you don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”
(Okay, since someone is going to ask, “So, Bob, are you saying since I have the right to live my life however I see fit I can go rob someone?” Of course not. Please note the second half of the sentence. One’s rights can never infringe upon anyone else’s rights. On the other hand, in a Socialistic society, where no one actually owns anything, it’s a lot easier to be a thug.)
So, again: “You have the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit, providing that you don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”
Simple, right? Do you agree with this creed? I find that most people (even believers in big government) instinctively agree. And, yet . . . we’ve seen clearly that socialism is based on force. Quite a quandary, isn’t it?
Now, in case one is tempted to ask the questions that most people reflexively ask, such as “but in a truly capitalistic system, what will happen to the poor? . . . what about health care? . . . what about a safety net? . . . why can’t we have both Capitalism and Socialism so as to enjoy the best of both? . . . Please understand, we will get to that. Right now we are simply establishing a premise as to what these two economic systems are. That way, in our future discussions, we can always be sure we stay on point with one another and – when a difficult situation arrives, we can always go back and check our premises, thereby keeping ourselves on the right track.
Capitalism is based on cooperation. Socialism (meaning any government program that forcibly takes from one and redistributes to another) is based on force.
In the next article, we’ll see that not only does force not work nearly as well as cooperation; it is not even necessary, and actually hurts those it is supposedly intended to help.
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
Bob, I completely agree. I am not at the top of the income chain. I have a neighbor who told me when I moved here that he has five kids so he doesn’t have to work. the city gives him everything he needs. Last summer they gave him another $40,000 to work on weatherizing his already nice looking home. I need a new furnace. -16 degrees last night and the only heat we have are electric space heaters. I asked for help when they got out all the programs. I am not on welfare. My debt to income ratio is above 40%. I can go fish. They not only take from me and give to him. but I need it too.
I really enjoyed your 3-part piece on Capitalism vs. Socialism. Too often I hear people comment on how they want to see more capitalism, yet they also say they want some form of socialism without even realizing what they are asking for.
I want government to protect my rights, protect my freedom, keep people honest, not share the pool. We are all CREATED equal, and that is where it stops.
Thank you Bob for taking the initiative to put this together.
Steve
Thank you, Alice and Steve, for sharing your experiences and thoughts.
When government focuses on itslegitimate functions; protecting its citizens from force and fraud Iin other words, protecting our individual rights), and otherwise leaving the marketplace and people to care for one another, it’s amazing what happens; prosperity for the masses, and lots of charity, kindness and care (all voluntary) for those who ‘truly’ cannot help themselves.
In future articles we’ll site many examples of how and why this works.
Hi Bob,
Thank you for writing on this subject matter. I have learned a great deal from them and look forward to reading more.
Being that the other subject matters on your blog deal with subjects of your books, i.e., Winning Without Intimidation and Endless Referrals, does that mean we can look forward to books regarding politics?
I, for one, hope so.
Thank you, Lee. I’ve been working on a booklet along these lines. I don’t believe I want to make it a full book, but would rather have it formatted in a way that we can easily explain some of the ideas we are exploring (and, will be exploring) in these articles.
Thanks again!
Bob,
I enjoyed your articles! Loved the analogy of the student working HARD for the A while the other student goofs off and receives an F. The analogy will be a great in discussion on the subject in the future.
Thank you for defining this subject for me.
Shari La Herran
Thank YOU, Shari. Stay tuned; we’re g0oing to dig into this a lot deeper. I truly appreciate your interest and kind words.
Hi Bob,
I am glad you are planning on writing more articles on this subject matter and will then publish them; even if it takes the form of a booklet, rather than a full size book.
From the comment that you made, regarding discussing the articles, does that mean we can look forward to you speaking on this subject as well? If so, will you just speak in your home state or nationally?
I cannot, of course, speak for anyone else, however, it is my opinion that with your knowledge of the subject matter, together with your excellent speaking ability and being able to win people over to your side of a discussion, that you should go national, (heck, go internationally), 🙂 with the message of these articles. People need to be informed . . .
Just a thought. 🙂
Best wishes on your continued success.
Thank you, Lee; that’s very kind of you. I’m not exactly sure what I’ll do with this in terms of speaking on the topic. I’ve presented on the issue, “What We Should Expect from Our Government” for various groups but it certainly hasn’t been my focus to this point. We’ll see what happens after the booklet comes out. Never know. 🙂 Thank you for asking, and for your suggestions. Much appreciated!
Your equivalence between the dole and charity is spot on. However, most people *do* want to give charity, and even those who want to give also want some manner of equity in the giving.
At the risk of losing my libertarian credentials, I think that the government can provide a useful service of co-ordinating that equitable giving, but it doesn’t need to handle the money and allow politicians to steal the credit for other people’s giving.
My suggestion, at least as a baby step toward less socialist society, is that we replace our current tax-and-spend safety net with tax-credit driven private charity. Even if the tax rate remained unchanged (which it shouldn’t), merely removing the money from the political pipeline would have all manner of social benefits (none of them centrally engineered):
* Though coaxed into giving, the givers would have choices about where, which would give them influence over what strings might be attached (e.g. job training, hearing sermons, quitting alcohol, relocating etc.).
* Religious people could give so that the glory would go to their chosen God, not their elected politicians.
*Non-religious people could keep their money out of “faith-based” charities, keeping all of the glory for themselves.
* Both could be freely achieved without gov’t either establishing or inhibiting religion. That’s because a tax-credit seeking populace *is* a wall of separation between church and state.
* Knowing that contributors have choices, charities would need to compete to deliver primary benefits (food, shelter medicine etc) and side benefits (social influence) most economically.
* Recipients would have some choices too.
* Knowing that contributors have choices, recipients would be more inclined to be grateful than when gov’t mandates their “due”.
* In choosing where to give (and receiving feedback therefrom), givers would become more aware of their community’s needs and their money’s good effects. This would activate more empathy than any tax man could.
* Empathy and gratitude stimulate one another, knitting society together. This is the exact opposite of the mutual resentment engendered by politically corrupt tax-and-patronize system we have today.
Hi Jeffry, Thank you for your thoughts. As I read your comment very early on, which says, “However, most people *do* want to give charity…” I’m thinking you may be reading this series in order (which is good!) 🙂 and haven’t yet read any of the articles I’ve written on this topic. Absolutely, most people want to give; there is no “however” that comes into play. I’ll be interested to note your responses after you read the three articles on this topic so far and the final one that will be published soon.
Regarding your thought, “I think that the government can provide a useful service of co-ordinating that equitable giving…” you and I would probably have to agree to disagree on that. I think the least thing we need is government involved in this area in any way. For two reasons; one is that they simply don’t do it well. Secondly is that it never ends up with their being as uninvoled as they are supposed to be. For the sake of the truly needy, let’s keep government out of it.
Again, I’ll be interested to know your thoughts after reading the articles I’ve written specifically on this topic.