slavery vs freedomkorinneconJuly 22 2005, 20:01:08 UTC
The biggest damning problem with socialism is that its concept of 'rights' extends further than that of capitalism, to the point of trampling freedom.
Under capitalism a statement like, "Everyone has the right to bear arms," means that everyone has the right to bear arms IF THEY SO CHOSE. This in no way implies that someone must provide them with the arms (Imagine if the government was expected to give every citizen a hand gun!). The other important element of this 'right' and other rights, like the right to free speech, is that nothing needs to be provided for the 'right' to be exercised. Nothing needs to be provided for you to exercise your right of freedom of religion, for example. In fact, it would take more effort to stop you from exercising this right. The important characteristic of our rights is that they are restrictions on the power and role of government in our lives.
Under socialism, rights are treated more as entitlements. When a socialist says, "Everyone has the right to healthcare," they mean something significantly different then the capitalist. This statement not only implies that everyone has the right to healthcare if they so chose, but that healthcare should be provided to them. The same implication lies behind the concept of a right to an education or to employment. These are all 'rights' that cannot be exercised by virtue of yourself, but things that must be provided.
The problem with the socialist conception of rights is that it requires resources to provide things like healthcare and education. The reality is that we have limited resources and a fundamental conflict occurs with the socialist 'rights' when the resources needed to provide the 'rights' are simply not there. Think of all the millions of people not receiving adequate healthcare, then think that healthcare already takes up about 14% of our GDP (GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in our country in a year)! Now, imagine adding all the additional healthcare needed to have it adequately provided to everybody. I have no idea what it would push that percentage up to, but lets give a conservative estimate of 50%. Now try this thought process again for education. Education currently accounts for 7% of GDP. I bet that could easily go up to 25% if adequately provided to eveybody (maybe higher since socialists usually include higher education). Already using up 75% of our nation's GDP just on two items, I hope everyone is noticing that we are quickly running out of resources.
I could get caught up in all the numbers, but there is a much more important flaw with the socialist conception of 'rights.' In order to exercise my 'right' to healthcare, hundreds of people must be working behind the scenes to staff the doctors office that I go to, to manufacture the equipment in the doctors office, to research my ailments, to produce the medications I might need, and on and on. The same goes for education and employment. In order for me to exercise my 'right' to employment someone else must work to create a business that has the resources to employ me.
Here is an very simplified example of what I am trying to explain. Let's say that Society A has only one person who is willing and able to be a teacher, and while this person is a teacher everyone in Society A receives an education. All is well and good. What happens, however, if one day this person decides that they no longer want to be teacher? Now, one is forced to choose between 'rights.' Either you violate the 'right' to an education by letting the teacher quit, or you violate the 'rights' of the teacher by forcing him/her to stay. If you choose the latter then the teacher is now no more than a slave.
How can anything be a 'right' if it requires the sweat and labor of another human being? This is exactly why freedom trumpeted the property rights of Southern slave owners in the 1800s.
That these 'rights' exist in socialism, rights that require the sweat and work of you or I to exercise these rights is how the 'rights' of socialism tramples freedom.
Korinnecon Give back and participate in my livejournal.
Under capitalism a statement like, "Everyone has the right to bear arms," means that everyone has the right to bear arms IF THEY SO CHOSE. This in no way implies that someone must provide them with the arms (Imagine if the government was expected to give every citizen a hand gun!). The other important element of this 'right' and other rights, like the right to free speech, is that nothing needs to be provided for the 'right' to be exercised. Nothing needs to be provided for you to exercise your right of freedom of religion, for example. In fact, it would take more effort to stop you from exercising this right. The important characteristic of our rights is that they are restrictions on the power and role of government in our lives.
Under socialism, rights are treated more as entitlements. When a socialist says, "Everyone has the right to healthcare," they mean something significantly different then the capitalist. This statement not only implies that everyone has the right to healthcare if they so chose, but that healthcare should be provided to them. The same implication lies behind the concept of a right to an education or to employment. These are all 'rights' that cannot be exercised by virtue of yourself, but things that must be provided.
The problem with the socialist conception of rights is that it requires resources to provide things like healthcare and education. The reality is that we have limited resources and a fundamental conflict occurs with the socialist 'rights' when the resources needed to provide the 'rights' are simply not there. Think of all the millions of people not receiving adequate healthcare, then think that healthcare already takes up about 14% of our GDP (GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in our country in a year)! Now, imagine adding all the additional healthcare needed to have it adequately provided to everybody. I have no idea what it would push that percentage up to, but lets give a conservative estimate of 50%. Now try this thought process again for education. Education currently accounts for 7% of GDP. I bet that could easily go up to 25% if adequately provided to eveybody (maybe higher since socialists usually include higher education). Already using up 75% of our nation's GDP just on two items, I hope everyone is noticing that we are quickly running out of resources.
I could get caught up in all the numbers, but there is a much more important flaw with the socialist conception of 'rights.' In order to exercise my 'right' to healthcare, hundreds of people must be working behind the scenes to staff the doctors office that I go to, to manufacture the equipment in the doctors office, to research my ailments, to produce the medications I might need, and on and on. The same goes for education and employment. In order for me to exercise my 'right' to employment someone else must work to create a business that has the resources to employ me.
Here is an very simplified example of what I am trying to explain. Let's say that Society A has only one person who is willing and able to be a teacher, and while this person is a teacher everyone in Society A receives an education. All is well and good. What happens, however, if one day this person decides that they no longer want to be teacher? Now, one is forced to choose between 'rights.' Either you violate the 'right' to an education by letting the teacher quit, or you violate the 'rights' of the teacher by forcing him/her to stay. If you choose the latter then the teacher is now no more than a slave.
How can anything be a 'right' if it requires the sweat and labor of another human being? This is exactly why freedom trumpeted the property rights of Southern slave owners in the 1800s.
That these 'rights' exist in socialism, rights that require the sweat and work of you or I to exercise these rights is how the 'rights' of socialism tramples freedom.
Korinnecon
Give back and participate in my livejournal.
Reply
Leave a comment