Official Discord for 1stAmender - Click to Join Us!

Why Liberty-Based Socialism Cannot Exist Realistically

Changing the way people think about news.

Tags: socialism libertarian  

Changing the way people think about news.

Why Liberty-Based Socialism Cannot Exist Realistically published by The 1st Amender
Writer Rating: 3.0000
Posted on 2018-11-26
Writer Description: Changing the way people think about news.
This writer has written 203 articles.

First I want to point out the two sectors of socialism to make things clear of where I come from. You have people who are authority based socialism. This includes people like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro. Basically the ideology of people who want to gain an authoritarian rule to create the "worker's economy."  This is the political system that actually exists. To top it off, we've seen it attempted and tried again and again only to show the huge absesses of inefficient economies causing a huge amount of death and destruction to make it a reality. Regardless, this is another subject that deserves a huge amount of articles to write about alone.

The part that is very interesting to me is the political system a lot of millenials will cling to. The social-based liberty model. This will be your sector that involves Green Party, Bernie Sanders, Ghandi, etc. They do not trust an economic system based on private benefit. The part that makes me think that their political system cannot exist is because a lot of the social programs focus on it's inception by voluntary release.

The idea that social programs and economic "giving" can exist on it's own without force is in itself impossible. While I am not saying "helping people" is not possible, I mean a large system to help assist in a more social giving than for economic benefit can exist without the existence of force. In order to have a social system of larger scale, it requires a forced distribution of some kind, effectively making your peace-loving social system into an authoritarian social system bent on creation of inefficiency due to beurocratic red tape of government.

Let's give an example. Think about a medical system by its own merit. Under a social liberal system you can think of a medical system that doesn't require money to be taken care of if you're sick. So everyone gets medical treatment regardless of whether or not they have money. This is a great thought and a great premise. A noble effort to say the least. Now how realistic is it? Think about the level of products that must be made to make this a feasible system. You need to have pill manufacturers, research and development firms provide service, doctors who have to stick around and assist patients, bandage manufacturers, buildings erected in the name of social healthful inclusion to all people, and so on.

How is all of the players in the health industry supposed to assist someone without expecting anything in return? Look at it in terms of just one of the cogs in the system. The pill manufacturer for example. The pill is being made to assist in an illness and now you have the people unanimously agree: "Okay now you need to give this to us for free, hopefully without force. Is that okay?"  Most businesses aren't interested in relinquishing their own product for nothing. They want a benefit for their donation of some kind. Usually monetary. While you have corporations that are voluntarily donating products and services to make things better, you cannot assume that all corporations will do this without expecting something in return.

Now here is where the social libertarian philosophy gets dicey. You have that same pill manufacturer that refuses to hand out their product for free. Let's say that it is the only pill that can help in this specific business, and for simplicity sake, it cannot be remade by someone easily without a great deal of effort. Now it comes into the realm of force. You have to make them provide so that people can have that benefit. This means forceful seizure of property to make sure that the product is given to the people. For the good of the people they say.

Image result for altruism is evil

Now we see economically that a social libertarian cannot exist. You have to have authority to get people to offer a service for nothing. And with that being said, creates a horrific scenario that degrades the overall quality of life till there is nothing left.

There is only one answer remaining that would bring the highest overall quality of life which has proven itself throughout historical context: Laissez-faire capitalism. With that being said:

If you hated this article, that's fine. You deserve your own opinion. If you find anything about it feel free to write your own article in rebuttal. I will read it. Additionally, I post an article a day Monday-Friday. Feel free to check out this site while checking out the articles I've written in the past.



Article Rating: 1.0000

You have the right to stay anonymous in your comments, share at your own discretion.

Venezuelanon: 2019-06-12 08:51:21 ID:3281

I think the problem with socialism, as in the most basic sense, is that while in a normal society you can choose to help or don't, socialism will force you to give.

The 1st Amender: 2019-06-13 01:16:44 ID:3287

The main aspect of course -- the difference between voluntary choice and coercion. Evil and good. Honorable and deplorable.

Anonymous: 2019-10-18 06:52:21 ID:3419

You seem to forget that socialism is workers controlling the means of production. Think true democracy in the workplace. Workers elect their managers/leaders. Currently capitalist corporate structure is more akin to dictatorships. Now understand that your arguments against this idea is exactly the same shit naysayers of democracy said vs having the classic few in power rule it all which works for the few at the exploration of the many. The model with the many in power can work for us all except maybe a few. Sounds better to me. Democracy hasn't stifled innovation and creativity. In fact the literal opposite has occured. Having a few people with power clandestinely has ended one way Everytime regardless of surrounding circumstances. Yet with power and wealth, the more equally it is shared amongst the most amount of people has proven time and time again to produce better and better results for the masses. Couple that with tranparency as well as a safeguard for the peoples to keep a few from attempting to usurp the system, I don't see another way for the future that turns out quite so we'll. Add in the fact that if we truly become space faring and scientifically more advanced, resources scarcity will be a laughable limitation of the incredibly dumb ancients that were playing the master slave game with any and all power/structures. Look at the industries that create false scarcity and how any power structure operates, be it political, corporate, religious etc when it's in the hands of a few without oversight and a way to remove and replace and be chosen by the people fairly. I'm far from religious, the "God(s)" that kept coming from the sky and doing crazy magic were more likely extraterrestrial or hallucinations than actual super duper all-powerful enity(ies), but if I may, This is why the meek shall inherit the earth; it definitely won't be today, may not be tomorrow, but eventually they will or we as a species and therefore con