Socialism is not a system of economics. Would that it were only that! It would then surely die of its incompetence. But it does not.
The failure of socialism has become a political cliché. In country after country, socialism has gone bankrupt. New Zealand gave it up. England has been in red-faced retrenchment. China can’t meet even a one-year plan. Russia doesn’t grow enough food.
Yet people persist in being Socialists; and good Republicans today enact laws Norman Thomas endorses.
So socialism can’t be just a system. It must be that something else, that muddled state of heart. FULL ARTICLE
{ 18 comments }
Nice story.
“Once Hunt disavows self-reliance, the performance of the leader he turns to is beside the point.”
Thank you. Very good illustration.
Great story. I have kids, and this has changed the way I think of dealing with them.
Very well written and the point is not lost on me. However, I would also have you consider that your boy Hunt may very well be intuitively grasping the concept of specialization – that his skills and time are better attuned to chasing butterflies and yours are more sharply honed for fixing broken train sets. If Hunt were indeed reliant on others for ALL things, then you would have cause for concern. But his fortitude sounds like it may be more geared towards exploration rather than engineering – Astronaut rather than Rocket Scientist. That we all are not equally blessed with mechanical aptitude should be abundantly clear. Is our time better spent butting our heads against a stone wall or delegating the task to someone more able, thereby freeing our time for ventures in which we are better suited and more productive?
This article reads like a poem. I do agree with SweetLiberty, it might be a bit pre-mature to decide the political leanings at such an early age, based on small number of anecdotes. But the article was written in 1956. The kids are now middle-aged? Did F.R. Buckley’s hunch prove correct? I am a bit curious.
Give him a fish and he will starve, give him a fish hook and he will live.
way I see it, when slavery was overturned, it was only half abolished. Let me explain: in a slavery-oriented milieu, the slave’s labour and mind is deployed at the pleasure of the slave’s owner. there is necessarily a reciprocal obligation on th epart of th eowher: he is obliged to ensure that the slave is adequately housed, clothed, fed and medically cared for.
then slavery was rightly defined as an abomination, and it was abolished. But there is a significant constituency who simultaneously claim the right not to be owned, and the right to insist that someone continues to deliver on the reciprocal obligation. which is, naturally, impossible. Freedom necessarily entails the obligation to accept the consequences of your choices, and the put to the slave owner ( or government) is not an option.
This is a great article. I only have one problem with it: it gives socialism an advantage by a flaw in the analogy. In this story, the father is the government and the sons are citizens. When Job goes to father for help, the point is never made that the father actually has his own resources which he can invest in fixing the train. The government doesn’t actually have any resources; all it can do is redistribute what the private sector produces.
This is a great article. I only have one problem with it: it gives socialism an advantage by a flaw in the analogy. In this story, the father is the government and the sons are citizens. When Job goes to father for help, the point is never made that the father actually has his own resources which he can invest in fixing the train. The government doesn’t actually have any resources; all it can do is redistribute what the private sector produces.
A charming story but of course very selective. Young children have to have support from the parents because they don’t have much in the way of their own resources. They depend on the “socialism” of their parents to survive.
Which is a very good analogy to today’s America.
America was a land of economic opportunity a hundred years ago or more when land was freely available to most. But land is no longer freely available. It has been taken by the few. So now the US is in the same position as most other countries. That is, a small percentage of the population own a large percentage of the land/resources. This leaves everybody else to either work for the few for minimal wages or, for those who are unemployed, to be supported by the state. Hence socialism.
knldgskr above quoted:
Give him a fish and he will starve, give him a fish hook and he will live.
I say you shouldn’t have to give anybody anything. We can all make a living if we have fair access to the resources of our country. It shouldn’t be the priviledge of the few.
I wonder what those two boys grew up to be like.
Also, I agree that the parent-as-state analogy would work better if Daddy “helped” his son fix problems by grabbing his gun, taking his son to the nearest neighbor with the “proper skills,” and demonstrating that Dear Leader can accomplish anything by applying proper motivation toward the masses. Of course, there would be inevitable intra-neighborhood purges and all that, but still…
If socialism were to collapse, why haven’t we seen it here? We have had socialism since the 30′s and yet no one seems to really give a damn. Yet people say “we must prevent this country from going into socialism”. pity argument at best, and rather boring at worst.
Too bad most people don’t understand what the austrian school is all about because of all the perpetuation by the government about how “real capitalism” is a failure and only regulations can solve our problems. We live in a land of corporatism, cronies, central planning, and a whole host of other problems.
When the US collapses at roughly the same time as the soviet system did, will people believe in honest liberty and unfettered free society? I don’t know.
“Insurrection is the Mother of Liberty” would be a good follow on article…
The American people want social security and Medicare. They want below market interest rates on mortgages, car loans and student loans like bankers who get money for free from the Fed. Everyone wants a great deal.
Americans prefer that rich people and businesses pay more to the government than they pay. Americans want the inflation tax that transfers money from the productive to fund their benefits. We have the current system because Americans elected politicians to provide them.
If rich people and business owners do not like these choices, they can stop being productive. They can shrink or close their businesses. They can arrange their affairs to reduce their income. Once unemployment and inflation are 15%, injuring ordinary Americans, new choices will be made. Smaller government, lower taxes and a stable currency will make more sense to the average voter then.
I have been thinking along the same lines recently. Austrians don’t emphasize enough the importance of free exchange. Every free exchange makes the world a better place. And Rothbard saw the power of history to motivate. Until the enlightenment people existed for government. The Founders realized that it should be the other way around and tried to set the people of the United States free. Liberty and Justice for all is what made the USA great.
But don’t limit your self to positive statements. If the state has failed then, by Jefferson, use those failures against them. We got welfare reform under Clinton when it was pointed out that the system was subsidizing inter-generational prostitution. Make sure that statists hear how government caused or contributed to the problem at hand and make them ashamed to propose government as a solution to a problem.
Socialism may not be sold as an economic system, but neither can freedom. Not only do dry economic arguments fail to convince most people—they shouldn’t. The matter-of-fact manner in which economists explain things reminds me of the cold shoulder bureaucrats shrug people off when regulations aren’t followed.
To change the world for the better, you have to build part of it yourself. Simply having a better argument doesn’t accomplish anything, and rightly, won’t garner much respect. The only way to remove the state (or those portions you object to) is to provide a real alternative. We must compete with the cartel, for that is the only way to break it up.
Socialism may not be sold as an economic system, but neither can freedom. Not only do dry economic arguments fail to convince most people—they shouldn’t. The matter-of-fact manner in which economists explain things reminds me of the cold shoulder bureaucrats shrug people off when regulations aren’t followed.
To change the world for the better, you have to build part of it yourself. Simply having a better argument doesn’t accomplish anything, and rightly, won’t garner much respect. The only way to remove the state (or those portions you object to) is to provide a real alternative. We must compete with the cartel, for that is the only way to break it up.
Socialism may not be sold as an economic system, but neither can freedom. Not only do dry economic arguments fail to convince most people—they shouldn’t. The matter-of-fact manner in which economists explain things reminds me of the cold shoulder bureaucrats shrug people off when regulations aren’t followed.
To change the world for the better, you have to build part of it yourself. Simply having a better argument doesn’t accomplish anything, and rightly, won’t garner much respect. The only way to remove the state (or those portions you object to) is to provide a real alternative. We must compete with the cartel, for that is the only way to break it up.
I apologize for the triple post, but my cell phone signal was flaky.
Can’t mises.org have a comment submission script like slashdot.org?
Comments on this entry are closed.