Whats wrong with socialism?

[abskebabs]

a monopolistic fire service is better than when there were many fire service and they would call in fake reports and set fires deliberately to get more profitable jobs.

 

Lol, I heard a while back that was an activity the French Fire Service engaged in anyway.

 

I doubt a private service that violated private property would survive for long or maintain enough of a reputation to survive on a free market.

[Pangloss]

IMHO, whether you think socialism is right or wrong, the mere fact that it's been completely ruled out of the debate (based only on cold-war fearmongering) is damaging, as it needlessly rules out options.

 

IMO we can rule out all of the fundamental socio-economic theories.

 

This discussion reminds me of the Sid Meier game "Civilization", where you pick what type of government you want. The game presents the familiar socio-economic theories as a progression of successively better forms, discovered through scientific research. But I always thought it was odd that it worked that way, because the dynamic that generates progress in socio-economic theories is not scientific research, it's human experience.

 

What I think human experience has shown us is that none of the unilateral theories, even with all of their philosophical underpinnings, actually works in their purest forms. The collection of these forms, ranging from fascism to socialism to capitalism, has gotten us pretty far, but none of them is really up to the challenges of modern technological life. Instant communications, the realization that we're all connected in our actions, the immediacy of information, these things pretty effectively undermine ALL of the unilateral forms.

 

Which leaves us with "hybrids", like our current system. Fine-tuning and perhaps even overhauling at some point in the future, but never throwing it back into one of those old, historic forms. In my opinion.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Pangloss

[Syntho-sis]

What I think human experience has shown us is that none of the unilateral theories, even with all of their philosophical underpinnings, actually works in their purest forms. The collection of these forms, ranging from fascism to socialism to capitalism, has gotten us pretty far, but none of them is really up to the challenges of modern technological life. Instant communications, the realization that we're all connected in our actions, the immediacy of information, these things pretty effectively undermine ALL of the unilateral forms.

 

Which leaves us with "hybrids", like our current system. Fine-tuning and perhaps even overhauling at some point in the future, but never throwing it back into one of those old, historic forms. In my opinion.

 

 

Well yes, we have been identifying the better of concepts for the last 400 years or so, and applying them as needed. I think the term "hybrid" is a good description of the system we now enjoy. It does present some shortcomings though (as seen by economic turmoil).

 

I think the best we can do is learn from nature and adapt to our environment. Quit holding on to ancient traditions and apply what we know will work in the long-run.

 

I think it's safe to say that socialism and capitalism both present tremendous benefits if applied in the correct situation. And applied by the correct people

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why is that?

 

 

Seriously, though. Socialism is terrible. We need to get rid of the fire departments, police, government maintained roadways, public libraries, and public school. Horrible thing, that socialism.

 

I will admit that the first section was somewhat humorous. The reason I hope that is not your argument against the free-market system is because:

 

For one it is a youtube video of two morons throwing fireworks out the back window of a moving bus.

 

Also because it did not provide any information or references to the statements that were being made by the individuals.

 

But mostly for the latter reason.

[The Bear's Key]

However, as an a biased economic analysis of interventions reveals, interventions lead to calls for more interventions; having produced distortions in the way the market operates by previous interventions...

Corrected

 

I'm sure everyone's familiar with the supplied link by now.

 

There are problems with deriving your info all from one source (or a group of "varied" sources with collaborated talking points).

 

...the majority of people speaking ill of socialism in the US have nary a clue what socialism actually is. They bandy about the term negatively due to cold war associations between socialism/communism and evil.

Much like we all contribute in tax dollars to ensure an active fire department, we all would contribute in tax dollars to ensure a basic minimum level of care for all citizens.

 

Why this is being associated with the nazis and being used as a negative/derogatory label... I simply can't conceive.

Fairly easy.

 

It's the same intent as painting the opposition "extreme" while at the same time portraying your own extremism as normal and middle-ground.

 

If they succeed in driving back socialism towards a new middle ground, soon they'd be attacking the new middle ground as extreme and driving it towards yet a lower middle ground. Until all that's left is a sliver of what existed -- and they'll likely blame all of society's ills (created by the unregulated markets) on that remaining sliver.

 

Although if you would prefer socialism you could always move to The People's Republic of China.

...and if you prefer Laissez-faire capitalism why not move to Austria?

 

Oh, wait!

 

They don't even support the crap embrace their "own" (supposed) philosophy, what by having a government of elected Social Democrats with its general dose of social programs.

 

Heck, you can't move anywhere to find it. Just doesn't exist.

 

I suggest trying to force an unproven, observed-nowhere philosophy on the rest of us as if it were absolute truth....by means of repeating verbatim after politicians and their media outlets.

 

 

so... again can someone explain to me what socialism is then.

Most realistically (for now)? It's a threat to a power structure's dependants: the thieves and greedies who demand no interference by authorities or public leveraging of fairness onto their schemes.

 

 

The US system is not a private system, but resembles a heavily regulated hampered market economy, so I think that's a false comparison.

Find us one that is an entirely private system.

 

I don't find it an amazing observation that bureacracies can do slightly better than such a system in various ways, the systems aren't really that different.

...with another quality in common: the most richest (by GDP and per capita) nations in the world are mixed systems.

 

For a good article on that specific subject, check this out.

Hmmm, mises.org again. Why don't you ask them to explain how the above is possible?

 

I doubt a private service that violated private property would survive for long or maintain enough of a reputation to survive on a free market.

Your doubt has been noted, in the section labeled "unsubstantiated beliefs contradicted by reality...including previous actual cases".

 

A final thought.....didn't the public services get installed for the precise reasons of the free market having insufficiently covered the population's needs?

[waitforufo]

What's wrong with socialism?

 

As I have mentioned in previous threads, socialism goes against human nature.

 

Individual human beings naturally act in their own self interest. This in and of itself is neither selfish nor greedy, but practical. It is simply part of our natural self survival mechanism.

 

So for example, it is in my self interest to live with other human beings because a mutual defense is better than an individual defense and labor can be specialized producing surpluses. Also it is in an individual's self interest to seek companionship and mating.

 

As a society evolves this self interest becomes more enlightened. I am willing to pay for the creation of a fire department because my home may one day catch fire. Also living next door to a burned down wreck of a home decreases my property value. I am willing to pay for public roads because said roads will decrease the cost of goods and services I wish to purchase from the fruits of my labor.

 

If you want to understand this better read Adam Smith. The free enterprise system exploits mans natural self interest to produce wealth and prosperity.

 

Socialism can best be summed up with the statement "From each according to their ability to each according to their need."

 

The central premise of socialism is that the collective is more important than the individual. Perhaps one could argue that placing such importance on the collective is the ultimate form of enlightenment, but such an intellectual position will have difficulty overriding the natural human predisposition to self interest.

 

A more likely result is that individuals will see that it is in their self interest to be needy rather than able. Since need is rewarded in socialist systems, people work to become more needy. Also in socialist systems, ability is discouraged since the product of ones ability and effort is forcibly taken. Natural human self interest dooms socialism to failure.

 

In several topics within science forms, post often talk about the degree to which a government is socialistic. Public schools are often given as an example of a socialistic aspect of the United States. I disagree. I willingly pay for public schools because it is in my self interest to do so. It has nothing to do with the needs of the little brats that attend those schools. Social Security is the same way. I don't care about the needs of old people. I just want them out of the workplace and job market. When it is in my self interest to bribe them out, I'm willing to do so.

 

In other words motivation maters. If I am acting in my own self interest instead of the collective self interest my actions are not socialistic.

 

Some may see my understanding as harsh. Well, nature is harsh.

 

Also, it is natural for human beings to avoid leaches.

[Pangloss]

Are there any pure socio-economic governmental forms that don't go against some aspect of human nature?

• Capitalism requires a suspension of disbelief regarding a consumer's ability to discern product differences (e.g. safety).
   
  
• Communism/Marxism/Socialism requires that everyone be trusted to put forth their best effort, which is contrary to human behavior in large societies.
   
  
• Monarchy based on the divine right of nobles requires a belief in the superiority of a racial subset, and the inheritance of wisdom (or a belief that it doesn't matter).
   
  
• Pure Democracy requires the somewhat crazed notion that the will of the majority is somehow paramount.
   
  
• Republics require the even crazier notion that elected representatives cannot be corrupted.
   
  
• Meritocracies require the acceptance of the rather odd notion that skill or intelligence equate to wisdom.
   
  
• Authoritarianism seems to be based around the idea that a dictator could be benevolent, and absolute power doesn't always corrupt absolutely.
   
  
• Of course there's religion, which works great when everyone has the same one and nobody bothers to question its validity. (grin)
   
  
• There's the amusing Demarchy, in which randomly selected people get put in charge. Hm, what could possibly go wrong?
  

 

And of course there's always Anarchy, which seems to invite EVERYTHING to go wrong.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

The central premise of socialism is that the collective is more important than the individual. Perhaps one could argue that placing such importance on the collective is the ultimate form of enlightenment, but such an intellectual position will have difficulty overriding the natural human predisposition to self interest.

Waitforufo, I appreciate the post you've put forth, and also the way you laid it out, however, you seem to have slightly missed the context of the thread. You did answer the question as posed in the title, but you address a fully socialistic economy as your target, whereas this thread was asking more about why a socialistic style program like universal healthcare is supposed to be so wrong. Slight, but rather important difference, that.

 

 

 

In other words motivation maters. If I am acting in my own self interest instead of the collective self interest my actions are not socialistic.

Motivation does not seem all that relevant, since we are, in fact, discussing a socialistic system, not your own individual actions. It doesn't quite matter how you personally feel about that system, nor if your self-interest is served in such a system, as the design of the system itself is a socialistic one.

 

If I were to paraphrase your argument, I would say that you feel that "it's only socialism if it doesn't serve my own self-interests." While it's not my intention to misrepresent you, and there exists a possibility that my paraphrasing did this, if my synopsis of your position IS accurate, then I find that argument rather lacking.

[Syntho-sis]

 

There's the amusing Demarchy, in which randomly selected people get put in charge. Hm, what could possibly go wrong?

 

I kinda like this one...Sortav like a lottery government. I wonder if any sci-fi books have been written on this premise.

 

Interesting nonetheless.

[bascule]

What's wrong with socialism?

 

As I have mentioned in previous threads, socialism goes against human nature.

 

Individual human beings naturally act in their own self interest. This in and of itself is neither selfish nor greedy, but practical. It is simply part of our natural self survival mechanism.

 

If that were true this argument would be an example of the naturalistic fallacy. However, it's not true. Humans, more than any other animal, exhibit empathy and altriusm.

 

Empathy is an essential part of human cognitive function and a lack thereof is often indicative of mental disorders:

 

http://bcn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/71

 

That's not to say that Objectivists are mentally deficient... at least in all circumstances

[insane_alien]

yeah, i always thought humans were social creatures. you, know how we tend to form groups, live in cities, have networks of friends, socialise in clubs and bars etc.

 

if we weren't social creatures then social networking sites wouldn't work at all as they are primarily for being sociable.

 

if we were all loners then we wouldn't see this sort of stuff. certainly not cities.

[Sisyphus]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a pretty fair description of how most functional families work. That's not a political argument, just an observation to ponder.

 

I would say, though, that prematurely declaring axioms of human nature is one way to describe the cause of much (most?) political strife.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Social Security is the same way. I don't care about the needs of old people. I just want them out of the workplace and job market. When it is in my self interest to bribe them out, I'm willing to do so.

 

I don't buy the central axiom of your post or believe that you actually are as utterly unsympathetic as you claim to be, but that's agree to disagree territory. This sentence, however, just makes no sense to me. Why would it be in your self interest to cause productive workers to be unproductive? Adam Smith certainly wouldn't think so. It benefits you to artificially limit labor supply in your own line of work, but most definitely not overall, as it just makes everything more expensive (decreasing supply of everything without decreasing demand) and decreases real wealth.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

What's wrong with socialism?

 

As I have mentioned in previous threads, socialism goes against human nature.

 

Individual human beings naturally act in their own self interest. This in and of itself is neither selfish nor greedy, but practical. It is simply part of our natural self survival mechanism.

If that were true this argument would be an example of the naturalistic fallacy. However, it's not true.

On top of that, it's a false premise. It mistakenly assumes that a persons self-interest cannot be fulfilled by social programs. It ignores things like how many self-interests are satisfied by things like public roadways, public libraries, public schools/universities, and public water treatment/distribution plants.

 

The fact that we often act in our own self-interest does not preclude the ability to satisfy our own self-interests via socialistic means. In short, self-interests and socialistic systems are not mutually exclusive.

[Syntho-sis]

The fact that we often act in our own self-interest does not preclude the ability to satisfy our own self-interests via socialistic means. In short, self-interests and socialistic systems are not mutually exclusive.

 

But there obviously exists some exclusion between the two, right? Not every action spawned out of a socialistic system is for the self-interest of the people. Sometimes whats good for us (or the entire community) is not in our self-interest.

 

Prison system for example.

[iNow]

Well, sure. There would not be 100% overlap of the circles in a Venn diagram (where one circle = "socialism" and the other circle = "self-interest"), but the overlap itself most certainly exists, hence refuting the central premise underlying waitforufo's assertion. The accuracy of his assertion is contingent upon the circles being completely separate and independent from one another.

[bascule]

Prison system for example.

 

A prison system is in your best interest if you adhere to the social contract. It ceases to be in your self-interest if you eschew societal rules. Perhaps eschewing those rules is in your best interest, but as you have empathy you recognize that your rights end where another man's nose begins. Punching him would be a bad idea.

[Syntho-sis]

Well, sure. There would not be 100% overlap of the circles in a Venn diagram (where one circle = "socialism" and the other circle = "self-interest"), but the overlap itself most certainly exists, hence refuting the central premise underlying waitforufo's assertion. The accuracy of his assertion is contingent upon the circles being completely separate and independent from one another.

 

Yes I definitely agree that there exists some correlation between the two.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A prison system is in your best interest if you adhere to the social contract. It ceases to be in your self-interest if you eschew societal rules. Perhaps eschewing those rules is in your best interest, but as you have empathy you recognize that your rights end where another man's nose begins. Punching him would be a bad idea.

 

Well it was an example in that most people have no interest in going to prison. Most people in fact will rationalize why they should be excluded from punishment of that form.

 

Then again most people will agree that some form of punishment for individuals is necessary to maintain the rule of law.

 

I was using self-interest in the form of interested in one's self i.e. placing your own desires above those of everyone else.

[bascule]

I was using self-interest in the form of interested in one's self i.e. placing your own desires above those of everyone else.

 

And I was pointing out that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't allow their self-interest to go unbridled, but instead temper their interests to fit within the social contract.

[The Bear's Key]

As I have mentioned in previous threads, socialism goes against human nature.

 

Individual human beings naturally act in their own self interest.

I could say "prove it"...

 

This in and of itself is neither selfish nor greedy, but practical.

...yet again.

 

But I'll refrain

 

 

 

Instead, let's extrapolate a bit on my interests following the "logical" premise of your claim.

 

 

My self-interests...

 

Able to encounter plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people who display critical thinking skills....the more the better -- at least 20% of society.

 

Content knowing that my friends/family or I are unlikely to be robbed because only very few in society would be desperately in need of food and/or shelter.

 

Increasing my chances of success from working hard and of not falling prey to anti-competitive measures used by greedies who'd destroy not only all competition but the health of unfortunates living in or near the collected resources and/or headquaters...with nary a thought. By protecting everyone (people and businesses) I'm also including me, no? Yay selfishness!? ?

 

Breathing gloriously refreshing, healthy air. Easily -- within practical distance (80 km/h speed) of most anywhere -- basking in the wonders of untouched nature and still being able to catch elsewhere the wondrous designs of crafted architecture both modern and ancient/historical....partly due to excellent government planning.

 

Witnessing new frontiers that began as scientifically important yet highly unprofitable, but nonetheless were given high priority and state-of-the-art treatment, i.e. moon landing, Hubble telescope, and various expeditions spanning all corners of the globe.

 

Option of less expensive healthcare purchased by government in bulk, same quality as private or at least the advantages outweigh the disadvantages -- without the hidden-from-view sway of business interfering with the plan, or sabotage by their bribed politicians.

 

Greatly fertile environment for business and innovation where a few spoiled apples don't rot the bunch and the sack it was carried in by.

 

A government that represents me not following the commands of a loaded ($$) business over my interests.

 

Ensuring that my own business system of goods delivery has a public infrastructure readied for max efficiency to both delivery and marketing, which of course includes paying my fair share of taxes as productive investments in my employees', networks', distributors', and customers' ability to maneuver safest in the least traffic for quicker and more solid earnings at every level (for my business). To help guarantee that.....

 

...the infrastructure system must benefit all players including those who labor to conserve nature, so my tax investments are least wasted on projects doomed for redesign or scrapping.

 

...the taxed must really pay a fair share. 1) any company likely to use more public resources and infrastructure should be taxed accordingly, much like private enterprise where cost totals increase for higher use. 2) a company likely to cause system-wide market distress and/or crashes upon failure should be taxed accordingly, as insurance policy for society so we can let the company fail without need for bailouts, the Federal Reserve, or panic. My tax $$'s saved, flow of goods consistent, and my bottom line's healthier.

 

...protecting my investment of taxes. I want to monitor ALL of that $$ every step of the way -- how it's used, by whom and how smartly, and in real time. So the first project I'd need my investment spent towards is to organize the already existent (and bargain price) technology for designing of a government-funds monitoring system which'll track every single penny in collected taxes available now and to whom each penny goes. The system would be developed openly under our careful watch, knowing exactly how it's planned, by whom, and recording everything that's said at all the meetings and by everyone involved.

 

Now back to leisurely stuff and the enjoyment of life. On my travels to various pseudo-developing nations, I'd like to experience their real culture, not the skeletal wisp of former richness that's left by a few of the multinationals who exploit their natural resources to the bone, leaving an impoversihed people in their wake. My interests are the continued existence of such different cultures, including any (mostly) harmless ancient traditions, which should change only naturally or voluntarily...rather than involuntarily by the external forces of business giants. And my interest is seeing others be able to experience and study those cultures as well.

 

...conclusion

=

business enterprise

+

a free citizenry

+

open scrutiny of all business meetings with government

+

a healthy combination of socialism designed and maintained by the right people

+

natural conservation.

 

Thus my business and personal interests demand the existence of a socialist framework, at least partially...with the inclusion of responsible government spending/activites -- not to mention industry oversight.

 

With utter laissez-faire my choices are seriously narrowed, the available options limited, investment risks (unecessarily) increased.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Pangloss
edited by user request

[Syntho-sis]

And I was pointing out that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't allow their self-interest to go unbridled, but instead temper their interests to fit within the social contract.

 

There was somewhat of a misunderstanding then. In that case I agree with your statements.

[waitforufo]

Perhaps I should have just simply stated that socialism is doomed to fail because it rewards need and punishes ability. Human natural self interest or self preservation will therefore bias people to become needier and less able in a socialist system. Why put forth effort when your goals can be achieved without effort? Why become able when the able are castigated and the needy are considered noble?

 

With regard to the intent of this thread (universal healthcare), an incremental approach to achieving socialism is still an attempt to achieve socialism. Why pretend it is not?

[ydoaPs]

With regard to the intent of this thread (universal healthcare), an incremental approach to achieving socialism is still an attempt to achieve socialism. Why pretend it is not?

 

You're right. While we're at it, let's get rid of our socialized fire departments, police departments, road maintenance, libraries, and schools.

[Pangloss]

For which we pay taxes, and very few consider those taxes to be efficiently managed. IMO examples of shared/pooled practices within our society don't prove that socialism works. They don't even address the question, because we may simply "pay the cost" of the "socialism" and consider it not worth bothering to change. By the same token, you can't point at McDonald's and say "capitalism works" either.

[padren]

Honestly, I think the easiest way to boil it down is socialism provides consistency at the expense of efficiency, and capitalism provides efficiency at the expense of consistency.

 

Markets are volatile, business compete and even intentionally attempt to eliminate competition without thought to the upheaval caused to those that depend on the competition's services. Even more so, businesses adapt, attempt new strategies and either succeed or fail - sometimes spectacularly.

 

At a macro scale the volatility more or less evens out as a wash due to the sheer number of businesses, though some crashes as we've seen can have catastrophic impacts on the entire world economy. I am not saying that makes capitalism "worse" or "evil" or "bad" but it is a real world factor.

 

In contrast, socialism is able to provide some level of consistency, but causes stagnation, requires constant input to fuel innovation against massive resistance (instead of being a natural by-product), and limits choice. Where capitalism has some 'really bad apples' that create localized collapses, the homogenized nature of socialism tends to ensure that all failings and faults are systemic - usually countered enough to prevent complete collapse but pervasive enough to drag down every aspect.

 

Take education for example - some private schools have horrible staff due to cronyism and such, others are excellent. Public schools have a lot of good teachers but the issues with the unions (as discussed in other threads) has a tendency to make 'the issue of bad teachers' a rather systemic one. The issue of being able to "just fire the bad teachers" is as much a problem in New York, as it is in Texas or California.

 

 

However, it does tend to create consistency and if we had no public education (collected no taxes for it) and it was all private the level of education would be far more volatile. Even if the average student scored higher that way than under our public system, the disparity in range would cause a lot more problems overall than we have now.

 

We have decided as a society that education (like defense, and many other things) requires the security offered by consistency over efficiency.

 

 

By far the best systems are hybrids. We have socially supported fire departments, using gear purchased and manufactured in the free market that are certified by socialized regulations. Innovation may be slowed somewhat due to red tape, but not nearly as much as if it was a all socialized and without nearly the 'highs and lows' of if it was entirely unregulated and based on the free market.

 

They are just two strategies that have different characteristics and have less to do with "huge ideological wars" and more to do with tools at our disposal to use together in the smartest ways to solve problems.

[The Bear's Key]

Perhaps I should have just simply stated that socialism is doomed to fail because it rewards need and punishes ability.

So how exactly does it punish ability?

 

Or, does it make them envious of the needy person's dilemma having gotten support -- and rather be in their shoes?

 

But also, how's it even rewarding need? All it's doing is taking care of a dire need. Or societal ones like education. It's not bothering with most other everyday needs.

 

For instance, lots of people get hungry for restaurnats (or take-out), want sex, and desire riches or big houses. Can you name one socialist government that provides any of it to citizens as standard procedure?

 

As for home food, keep in mind that in the U.S. less than 10% here are on food stamps, usually as a temporary measure -- and often just partial benefits.

 

Human natural self interest or self preservation will therefore bias people to become needier and less able in a socialist system. Why put forth effort when your goals can be achieved without effort?

Wrong on so many levels. Really.

 

Have you not ever met people who refused help, no matter how available it was? Look at things from an inner view. Would you become that needy and dependent person if you were helped out in a time of need (or urgent care)?

 

Or, could also read up on a study to help clarify the number of eligible who are too proud to receive help. I'm certain all of us here know many such people.

 

Why become able when the able are castigated...

Please specify how they're castigated.

 

 

and the needy are considered noble?

As for the needy, it's a bit of an exaggeration for being considered noble. There's plenty in the successful realm who are idolized, so I fail to see your view. Heck, even on these or any professionally run forums, if someone has awful grammar (i.e. "needy" of writing skills), they're certainly not given a round of high-fives and star treatment.

 

Plus I've repeatedly heard such views (loudly) claimed by political media opponents of government help. My suggestion: please think for yourself mate.

 

 

Public schools have a lot of good teachers but the issues with the unions (as discussed in other threads) has a tendency to make 'the issue of bad teachers' a rather systemic one. The issue of being able to "just fire the bad teachers" is as much a problem in New York, as it is in Texas or California.

Actually I made the case of it being a misconception about teachers unions, where the real culprits might be the school administrators. Unions certainly have their faults, but let's address real ones.

 

They are just two strategies that have different characteristics and have less to do with "huge ideological wars" and more to do with tools at our disposal to use together in the smartest ways to solve problems.

And therein lies the rub....both strategies have "more to do with tools at our disposal to use together in the smartest ways to solve problems".

 

Thus the best ways of solving problems also often hurts those who profit highly from the messy-on-us system.

 

But I did hint at something like that once (a while ago)...

 

By the neocons cheeleading a system of personal greed laced with a "me, me, me" attitude, they've stuck us to live in a neocon-tainted capitalism.

 

And while selective regulation of industry has been allowed by neocons, those exceptions -- and the complaints against regulation -- seem to be crafted on the formula below.

 

• If the regulation helps general busines owners AND the crooked players, it's a great law.
  
• If the regulation helps general business yet thwarts the crooked players, it's a bad law.
  

(The first type of rule doesn't interfere with their cheating. And the other weakens their bread-and-butter.)

 

So I view it as such: mass problems don't happen by coincidence. The roots of it's all fairly simple really.

[entwined]

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)

n.

1. 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.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

 

 

cap·i·tal·ism (kp-tl-zm)

n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

 

Take your pick, but I personally prefer capitalism.....it seems to return more wealth to the proletariat than socialism.

 

My opinion is that it produces more wealth than socialism, hence more to go around.