One of the key things that is important to understand is that Socialism is not a political system. Neither is Communism an economic system. Most mainstream branches of socialism advocate for a mixed economy based on nationalisation of key industries. For example, in the United States various programs including but by no means limited to roadbuilding, national defence, firefighting, policing and some aspects of the healthcare system (Medicare, Medicaid) are nationalised and controlled by government. This is by loose definition a socialist practice, where certain industries are managed by the social planner in order to maximise social welfare.
National defense is written in our constitution as the primary purpose of the federal government and by necessity is a governmental function. Roadbuilding, firefighting and policing are supposed to be managed locally- where the people can make better decisions than a centralized massive bureaucracy. Medicare, medicaid and social security are all unconstitutional ponzi schemes compounded by decades of mismanagement and theft of resources by the federal government and as a result are all bankrupt and will fail at some point in the next few years.
Yes- government does serve a vital role in our lives. those functions that can't be performed by the private sector belong to government- either locally or if covered by the Constitution federally.
Damn, looks like this is turning into a quotefest after all. Apologies.
You've admitted in principle that some functions cannot (should not?) be performed by the private sector. Let's examine why this is - there is no reason why any industry cannot be run in theory by the private sector; roadbuilding and even national defence could in theory be privatised. Why aren't they? Because they are better provided by the government. Here's why.
In every market there are a number of costs and a number of returns. They are most easily split into the categories Private and Social. When a good or service is sold, it generates a private cost and return, and through traditional supply and demand mechanisms the free market sets a price and a quantity sold. Now, at each quantity sold the market also generates a social cost and return. Why is the social cost/return different to the private cost/return? Because of things economists call externalities (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities) - these range from negative externalities like pollution, to positive externalities like the non-linear return on vaccination investment.
In an ideal market, the social cost and return would be managed so that they are balanced, therefore maximising social welfare. Now, national defense and roadbuilding are two examples of what economists call Public Goods (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods) (or social goods). On a basic level, a public good is a product where the social returns are far higher than the private returns at any given quantity. There are loads of examples of this, but national defence is a good one. In a totally free market with no public sector at all, each individual would have to pay a private firm to provide defence services. Unfortunately, the individual motivation to do so is very small (the easiest way to understand why is to look at something like the Tragedy of the Commons (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) or the free rider problem (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem)) and the service is underprovided by the free market. When a government is able to provide national defence through taxation it can set the quantity consumed at the higher, more socially optimal level. The actual benefit from doing this is actually surprisingly large; whatever excesses there are in the government-run system, they are more than subsumed by the benefits generated. So much so that there is virtually no country in the world without a government-run subsidised national defence force.
So, that is the argument for the public sector. Despite your assertion that medicare/medicaid and social security will fail because they are mismanaged and bankrupt (of which I don't think you have any evidence), what argument do you have against them that doesn't also apply to other stuff the government already does? If we extended this to the debate over healthcare, it's very clear that a government-run system, whether single payer or not, would increase aggregate social welfare. All the evidence from Europe points towards "socialised" or public healthcare providing better quality (
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) and being more efficient (
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html) (according to the WHO). Why then would you argue against it?
The principles of limited government the US were founded are the reason we have built the largest most prosperous nation in the history of humanity. One where even the poor have a roof over their heads, more food than they need, cars, multiple cable tvs and cell phones. There is not a single socialist country you can point to that enjoys the prosperity we do here.
Except despite this assertion, quality of life indexes usually place "socialist" countries at the top of the list. Here's a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-Life_Indexhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Prosperity_Index (in more detail at
http://www.prosperity.com/ranking.aspx - amusingly this indexing has links to GWB's administration and Faith-Based Initiatives)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562206/Top-20-countries-for-quality-of-life.htmlhttp://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2009/In none of those lists is the US the top, and in each case it is beaten by a few "socialist" countries. Unfortunately, the myth that the US is number one in the world is just that - a myth propagated by the US nationalist right. There isn't much in the way of evidence to support it.
There is no class system in socialist philosophy. In Europe, where most governments are far further left both economically and socially than the US, there is less social disparity than there is under the US free market which could be reasonably described as plutocratic. Purely capitalist economies by their very nature stratify more heavily into those who have and those who have not, where in a system with more heavy social intervention the stratification is in fact reduced by redistribution of income and public provision.
That is the theory. But in reality socialism is the WORST kind of class system. The kind where you have two classes- the elite ruling class and the serfs. People fall into those classes by luck of birth and there are many barriers to prevent changing classes. A true capitalist system has no classes at all. People succeed or fail based on talent, education, luck, family resources and countless other factors- but EVERY person has an equal (not necessarily "fair") chance to succeed. People are generally classed according to their income- poor, middle class, rich, etc. but there are no barriers at all (in theory) to these "classes". A poor person can build a great business or come up with an invention and rocket up into the ranks of the rich or a rich person can make bad decisions and find himself penniless.
I don't think you read what I wrote. There is no class system inherent to socialism. Capitalism by its nature develops social stratification, socialism actually reduces it.
Socialism as an economic concept works, and has worked in practice for decades if not centuries. Confusing a functioning economic system, which improves aggregate welfare and provides subjectively better services than the free market, with a (historically-speaking) corrupt totalitarian political system doesn't make sense.
Improves welfare? Like the woman who had to give birth on a sidewalk (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html)? Or babies left to die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html)? Or countless other stories I don't have time to look up right now...
Anecdotal evidence (from the Daily Mail, no less, a tabloid run by Rupert Murdoch well known for its factual inaccuracy)? Interesting stories, but they don't actually prove anything. For each of those stories you can post, I can find one (or more) from the US healthcare system.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sicko-the-truth-about-the-us-healthcare-system-451651.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.htmlhttp://blog.aflcio.org/2008/01/15/tell-us-your-health-care-story/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8198084.stmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs-united-states-republican-healthAnecdotal evidence proves nothing. When the US is ranked lower than "socialist" countries in both efficiency of spending and quality of provision through statistical analysis, that is evidence. Random stories from tabloids aren't.
