Misconception: Police, Fire, Road Construction, Etc. Are Proof that Socialism Is Great
ByThis is the most common type of argument I get, and I’ve seen it take the following forms:
1. Government Service X works, and that’s socialism, therefore socialism works/is great.
2. You wouldn’t want to not have Government Service X? No you wouldn’t! And Government Service X is socialist, therefore, you can’t say you don’t want socialism.
3. Conservatives, if you really hate socialism, I demand you immediately call for all services of type Government Service X to be abolished because they’re socialist.
Where in the above, Government Service X is one or more basic safety, infrastructure, or a limited government service, such as police, fire department or road construction.
These arguments are completely moot, i.e. have no practical significance. To see why, let me agree with those arguments for a moment:
Fine, Government Service X (read police, departments fire, road construction, etc.) works great, we have to have it, and it’s socialist.
However, it’s interesting how those services like Government Service X that are most frequently pointed to as paragons of socialism in this context, are those which are limited in scope, have little effect on the citizens’ personal choices and freedoms, and are mostly run by local governments. This should give us a STRONG hint where government does its best and where it fails. A fantastic in-depth treatment of this theme appears in this article.
So in fact, Government Service X is so great, let’s have socialism only like that! Let’s limit our government services to basic safety and infrastructure. (After all, we’re not advocating no government here, just limited government. Any suggestion to the contrary is a straw man argument.)
But if we do that, we’ll have a whole lot less socialism here and maybe even less than anywhere else in the world. Clearly that’s not what proponents of socialism have in mind! (Socialists, let me know if I’m wrong here.) So if socialism is to be a whole lot more than the likes of Government Service X, then Government Service X is irrelevant in support of what socialist really want.
If socialism were about limited infrastructure programs, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This may change the day we hear people say “Denmark sure has a lot of socialism, just look at all their police, fire departments and roads,” but until then, socialism means something else.
And we’re done! Thank you and good night everybody.
Here is an example of the above, where Government Service X is the government’s development of the early Internet. This discussion transpired in the Facebook page of “Socialism Does’t Work”:
Some Proponent of Socialism:
Socialism DOES work folks–you’re using the Internet developed by the US gov. However, two cups and a string are non-gov. Use them as you see fit.
Me:
Of course, that the government developed the Internet is proof socialism is great. Why didn’t I think of that before? Everybody, as of tomorrow I’m changing the name of this page to “Socialism Does Work”. Oh, and it wasn’t until the government opened the Internet for private use that pretty much everything people think of as the “Internet” today really happened.
Some Proponent of Socialism:
Perhaps the groups name should be “Socialism, like the Free Market, has its Strengths and Weaknesses.”
As to the last few sentences, the private sector would never have taken the colossal risk to build it. Same for the highway system, the Louisiana Purchase, government range lands, and the land to build the early railroads . Government builds the slate and the private sector then writes on it. The private sector cannot exist without government, and vice versa.
Me:
I repeat, it wasn’t until the government opened the Internet for private use that pretty much everything people think of as the “Internet” today really happened.
If your example of the Internet, where the government took a relatively small initiative and then stood out of the way of the private sector to see huge growth over and beyond government control, is what you call “socialism” then I’m all for it! Why don’t we try that with health care? But I think those who want more socialism in the US will strongly object to that characterization of it.
And that was the end of it.
In general, government programs, whether we call them socialist or not, whether they’re necessary or not, will exhibit certain negative side-effects. And that’s why government does not scale. Have a little bit of it, and you’ve got a well running society. Have more, and the negative side-effects overtake any intended benefits.
10 Comments
April 12th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I like your passion. This subject comes up every day (fire department vs. nationalized healthcare, etc.) and I found an answer that is the most helpful that I’ve ever seen, this is it:
http://sasoc.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/a-good-comment-and-a-reply/
April 12th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Wow, this is brilliant! Thanks for sharing.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Oh look, you deleted all the comments discussing the flaws in your argument. Easier than looking bad I guess, good luck with your echo chamber
November 17th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Oh look, another socialist who thinks s/he’s smarter than a door knob.
November 19th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Dissenting opinions = socialism? You’re starting to sound like a fascist. If you have to delete comments instead of making a rebuttal, you really don’t have much faith in your convictions.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:32 am
In case you haven’t noticed, this is an anti-socialist site, so dissension here most likely = socialism. If not, you’re free to state your case why.
Not at all. I do not have infinite time, resources and energy to offer a rebuttal for every stupidity that’s posted as a comment. Some arguments are so stupefyingly boring and repetitive, and been addressed so many times before that I don’t feel like giving them a voice.
In Telemetry’s case, the comments were as long as a novel and they were becoming irrelevant to the matter at hand since I already admitted the specifics of the argument were flawed. However the overall conclusion is not. This is a different post representing a different argument with a more precise conclusion (stated in the post’s title.)
If you feel this argument is flawed, then state your case.
March 25th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
soo….basically you just agreed that it IS socialist, but tried to play it off as not as big a deal? LOL yep, ur a repubby alright!
March 25th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Soo… basically you still think that this BS argument shows that socialism is great? LOL yep, ur a commie alright!
December 13th, 2011 at 3:39 am
The whole open source movement could be defined as socialist. How much did you pay to download WordPress to run this site? You didn’t. Do you know how many man hours when into the production releases of the product? From their about page:
“Everything you see here, from the documentation to the code itself, was created by and for the community. WordPress is an Open Source project, which means there are hundreds of people all over the world working on it.”
Socialism has its advantages in those instances when individuals and a group both mutually benefit. Which are the only instances worth moving forward. In capitalism instances can move forward based on monetary strength that don’t benefit the group they are providing the product/service to. Example, bankrupting a country without breaking a single law due to lack of regulations.
I think democratic capitalism is the best way to start an economy or country but in that system greed and corruption are inevitable. The US has mastered capitalism and it will lead to class separation until there is only super rich and super poor. Bigger companies absorb smaller companies who pose a threat. That absorption will continue in a capitalist society until there are super rich and super poor. Creating a VERY small chance to rise up against them to compete. You can already see that problem now. Trying to start an ecommerce platform to rival Amazon would be near impossible. Trying to start a social network to rival Facebook, also near impossible. To me once that point has been reached (maybe you think it hasn’t yet) then Capitalism no longer becomes the “Everyone can succeed” platform that we love it for.
I do like capitalism because I don’t think all people are equal in skill and intelligence. Capitalism, to me, resembles evolution. Only the strong survive. Within a finite economical system though I don’t see myself (or you) surviving against billionaires and their offspring who inherit billions without a change. To me the most logical change would be inheriting socialist traits to help level the playing field so everyone can succeed and has the tools to try it.
You could argue Einstein was the most intelligent man thus far in humanity and he believed in socialism. So please don’t say Einstein was trying to prove he was smarter than a door knob like your previous comment.
December 14th, 2011 at 9:29 am
The open source movement has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with free market capitalism.
You seem to equate free with socialism. The two are obviously not equal. Using Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Network TV, AM and FM radio, is all free. Is that socialism? It’s clearly not. It’s just private enterprises giving out things for free to gain something else in return.
Those who contribute and create open source projects also do so because they’re getting something in return. They’re contributing out of their own self interest, or otherwise they would not be doing it of their own free will.
Some of the things one may gain by contributing to open source are as follows:
1. The fun and satisfaction of creating something that others find useful.
2. Recognition and becoming known in the development community.
3. Better job prospects.
4. Using the open source project to create a business. (WordPress and MySQL have done that.)
5. Having other people help improve a component that you’re using as part of your commercial product but that is not related to your competitive advantage.
In addition, open source clearly does not follow the “from each according to his means to each according to his needs” mantra of socialism. One can be the richest man in the world and still use open source products for free just as much or more as someone who is poorer.
Free market capitalism has this advantage, see above.
In socialism instances can more forward based on lack of knowledge, power hunger and greed of its leaders that don’t benefit neither the group nor the individual. Example, encouraging sub-prime mortgage lending in the name of “affordable housing” for the poor, bankrupting a country.
How do companies “absorb” other companies? They have to buy them.
Yes, that’s what the Marxists have been saying for over 150 years, but Amazon did not exist 17 years ago, and Facebook did not exist 7 years ago. So they recently had this opportunity that you claim does not exist anymore.
Apple was small 20 years ago and Microsoft was huge. Now Apple is larger than Microsoft. 20 years ago, IBM was the king of computer manufacturers, but now it doesn’t even make personal computers.
8 years ago, a friend trying to start an Internet company was complaining to me that everything has already been established on the Internet, and therefore it’s near impossible to start a successful company. But then not even 2 years later the social media revolution happened that brought MySpace, and Facebook, and Twitter, and many, many other companies that grew huge and made piles upon piles of money.
Things change all the time. Why would you want to start another Amazon, or another Facebook? Start something new.
Everybody can be wrong. Einstein was even wrong about some things is physics, his field of expertise. In addition, Einstein died over 50 years ago, and therefore, was not privy to all the decades of world experience with failed socialism.