Socialism, Capitalism, and the Pursuit of Happiness

[SteveG]

I have as many friends who think I am too liberal/socialist as I do who think I am too conservative/capitalist. That might seem like a good medium, but some people insist that being centrist really means having no political philosophy at all. That made me start thinking about what pragmatic forces might push thoughtful people (hopefully me included) toward moderation between the political extremes.

The capitalist philosophy at work in America observes that people are happy when they feel empowered to control their own destiny by reaping the rewards of their own efforts. Disconnect the rewards from the effort, and the hard workers lose their incentive, or feel wronged, apathy sets in among the masses, and both productivity and creativity suffer.

The socialists, in contrast, have observed that once the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing are provided for, added wealth does not always translate to greater happiness among human beings. In fact, the greater the disparity of wealth, the greater the personal stress or discontent among the population. The poor tend to resent the rich, and the rich become fearful of the poor, or sometimes embarassed at their wealth. Surprisingly objective psychological studies have found that among populations where the basic needs of health and comfort are met for practically everyone, people who live in populations with greater socioeconomic equity are generally happier than people who live where there is much greater variance in fortune and opportunity. Furthermore, those who are successful often find happiness in helping provide for the needs and dignity of those who are not.

This points to two equilibrium forces at work in human nature: the desire to independently achieve and thrive, and the desire to share and improve the welfare of all. Moving too far with one objective inevitably conflicts with the social/psychological/political factors responsible for the other. Organizations of human beings will always dither somewhere in between, or else they will collapse, in either class warfare or revolt against organizational mechanisms of equalization.

-Steve Goodridge

[johnb]

Your premise is faulty at conception:


moderation between the political extremes.

Liberty is not extreme, but to a despot.

Our starting point need be the foundational premise/document of this republic. Moving away from the premise that encouraging and supporting liberty is the primary goal of this government/Constitution is a move towards extremism.

Your premise smacks of attempting to triangulate between good and bad for the sake of triangulation. While triangulating between the right and left secured Bill Clinton two terms in the White House I fail to see the value in splitting the difference between liberty and slavery.

Whether people are happy with minimal wealth or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that that determination is not mine to make, it is not yours to make, it is not even the sociologists to make. It is the individuals to make. Government which proposes to make people happier by stripping them of their freedom is evil. Those who favor that type of governance are hostile to the principles of liberty.

[Cathy]

"Moreover he [the American] has conceived an opinion of himself which is often exaggerated but almost always salutary. He trusts fearlessly in his own powers, which seem to him sufficient for everything. Suppose that an individual thinks of some enterprise, and that enterprise has a direct bearing on the welfare of society; it does not come into his head to appeal to public authority for its help. He publishes his plan, offers to carry it out, summons other individuals to aid his efforts, and personally struggles against all obstacles. No doubt he is often less successful than the state would have been in his place, but in the long run the sum of all private undertakings far surpasses anything the government might have done."

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


GREAT Clinton analogy, John. why don't more people "get it"???

Cathy

Consider Jefferson's First Inaugural Address: "a wise and frugal government . . . shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

[johnb]

There are too many like our friend Mark who "know" what is best for everyone else and can't wait to force it on us.

[SteveG]

I observe not good versus bad, but political reality.

In a democratic nation, where the government represents the will of the people, government-provided social services are a product of the people's will. Not everyone's, but the majority. Both the rich and the poor support, in large enough numbers, certain types of social programs to protect the most basic needs of the unfortunate, to get them back on their feet and help them help themselves. There is a certain level of food, water, clothing, and education at which people's productivity greatly increases, and thus their ability to help themselves. Most people believe that investing a little to keep less fortunate people above that threshold pays back with dividends by making them far more productive and ultimately self-sufficient, and by minimizing social disorder. Most people support public (i.e. government) programs to address these issues because the many of the side effects of suffering versus prosperity are public, i.e. they are shared by everyone. Some people may prefer to wall themselves into their own private compounds or flee to remote wooded refuges, but most people vote to support doing something to address social problems.

This is not to say that many of the social programs do not have problems. Many entitlement programs have been abused and are poorly managed. The larger the social programs, the larger the waste that can be found. It is an endless struggle to rid such social programs of waste and keep them effective at moving people up and out of both despair and dependency on the programs themselves. But most people prefer to deal with the challenge of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of some social programs rather than abandoning public social programs altogether.

I prefer the typical approach in the USA - to assist the needy but transition them to independence ASAP - to the European approach, with is more socialist and long-term in its participation. However, I think the political equilibrium in democratic society will always be somewhere in this range, from the American tradition to the European model of public social assistance.

[johnb]

I think you hit a nail on the head Steve:


Most people believe that investing a little to keep less fortunate people above that threshold pays back with dividends by making them far more productive and ultimately self-sufficient, and by minimizing social disorder

Much of the "welfare" spending is a bribe, basically, don't riot in the streets and burn down the city and in exchange the government will cut you a check every month. As such, much govenrment housing is NOT humanitarian in nature, it is a means to warehouse people who either won't or can't assimilate the values of self-sufficiency and self-control.

To a point you are correct, it is pragmatic. That doesn't necessarily remove it from the good v bad equation. It just assumes it will be and the choice must be made.

[Wuptdo]

Was doing some other research and came across these two stories:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_americorps

I think Hillary managed to keep this one on the books for another year.

Then there is this little article in the N&O:

http://www.news-observer.com/news/nation_world/story/1356255p-7479494c.html

If this is the case, why is the Triangle United Way (TUW) complaining about not meeting "target" monetary goals and cutting staff? Hmmm...maybe someone in CP can enlighten the rest of us :wink: ?

Wuptdo B-)

[Cathy]

Isn't that something.......? When people are free to pursue wealth and keep the fruits of their labor, they tend to give more to charity.

And the charitities that perform the best, end up receiving the higher contributions......a standard the Government never has to meet when it attempts to accomplish the same goals as the charities.

Cathy

[Wuptdo]

Cathy,

I am currently doing a media study of Ronald Reagan's death (US vs. foreign newsprint). One of the things I am looking for is the use of famous Reagan quotes in the newsprint. This one came to mind:


Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem. Ronald Reagan

I found this article in the Japan Times written by Jane Rees


I have re-read Reagan's letter to me on Jan. 19, 1989, his last full day in office. His words explain his thinking: "government has to work with us, not over us; to stand by our side not ride on our back; and you ensured that government remains the servant, not the master, of the hopes and dreams of our people." Thank you, President Reagan.

Wuptdo B-)

[Cathy]

Wuptdo,

Thanks for the second Reagan quote.

I will file that one for use later, if I get to speak at any more Committee Meetings in support of annexation referendum, it will be quite fitting.

Cathy

[Anonymous]

More fun with Reagan quotes!

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. "You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"

[Cathy]

More fun with Reagan quotes!

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. "You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"

Amen to that!

Cathy