Re: Socialism, again

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 07:45:25 MST


In a message dated 11/2/2002 7:53:19 AM Central Standard Time,
neptune@mars.superlink.net writes: Any of various theories or systems of
social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is
owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and
controls the economy.

       My problem with that definition is that if you look at politicians you
will find they are usually motivated by power or money. Now, once in a long
while a guy like Washington comes along that isn't so motivated but if so
they are surrounded by those that are motivated by money or power. In our
own case by our 3rd President the office was sought and gained by an
organized political party according to my understanding.
       According to von Hayek when a people try to have central planning or
have "common good" as the goal two things happen.
       First, we have no definition of what the common good is. If we have
280 million people in this country we probably have 281 million ideas of what
constitutes the common good.
       So, we are back to handing over to a small group or an individual the
power to decide the common good. That is the same situation as what we have
under capitalism. The difference is that the capitalist owns the
organization we work in and we can depend on that capitalist to not act
suicidally -- most times. If we have a socialist or government controlled
economy we don't have that assurance -- please look at the Post Office, our
Airports and the Bureau of Indian Affairs as prime examples.
       Second, if the economy is capitalist each capitalist owns or controls
only a segment of the economy. If we don't like our organization it is easy
to vote with our feet. Someone described Henry Ford as having had a
tremendous liberating effect on the average worker. Before Mr. Ford you
could only work within walking or street car distance from your home. Even
moving was difficult. After Mr. Ford you could work within a distance that
was much more flexible. As to moving, when I was younger some buddy was
always calling up and getting together a working party to move himself. Now,
if you can find a better job you change and if necessary you move -- all with
little to do.
       But there is a bigger problem. Sooner or later the planning goes far
enough that a legislature can no longer keep up. Things start getting in a
bad way and a czar is needed so the fast decisions that are required are
possible. That is a ready made situation for a thug to take over. Initially
that thug is seen as a savior as he has been in many countries.
       So all in all, I don't even like mass transit. I want to keep the
power and flexibility that having my own transportation gives me. <G>
Ron h.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:56 MST