The Socialist Epitaph and the Looming Healthcare Battle

If you are like me, you are getting really tired of conservatives coming on TV and screaming about how we are headed down the road to the dreaded S-word, Socialism. Apparently, the label of liberal isn't as damning as it used to be so they had to ramp up the rhetoric. So now according to them, Barack Obama and most of the Democratic Party is just a group of Fidel Castro admiring commies. I find this to be completely counterproductive in advancing our country's political discourse. It is deliberately misusing a word in order to demonize political opponents. It is no different than when liberals call conservatives fascists. It serves no productive end. It's just a meaningless epitaph that holds no connection to the true definition of the word.

What is socialism? The very basic, general definition is, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole". What is capitalism? "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."

So the natural question that should follows is, "why is socialism bad?" Well here is my overly simplified explanation. Socialism on a micro level is completely workable. I've seen it with my own eyes on the extremely micro level. That being the Marianist Brothers who ran my high school and lived in a small society in which they shared everything and divided up the work to be done between them. The Native Americans also lived in working socialist societies. Again though, their tribes were infinitely smaller than even our least populated states. The problem is that unless EVERYONE buys in, it's doomed to fail. You cannot have half the population accepting and willing to live and work just as hard under that system and half the population saying, "screw it, I won't work because I'ma get mine anyway". On a macroeconomic level, socialism is just not workable and therefore not as good of an economic system as capitalism is.

Capitalism is simply a better economic system when it is properly regulated. When it isn't... well you get events like The Great Depression and now. But capitalism is far more efficient in creating wealth and prosperity. Implementing socialism on a population and area as large as the United Stated would undoubtedly need central government planning. Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends. It really is as simple as that.

I really don't understand how there are still so many defenders of socialism or laissez-faire capitalism left. A favorite quote of mine from Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope states, “Our history should give us confidence that we don’t have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism.” I couldn't agree more.

Noting that, for some odd reason, I just don't find any truth in the claim that Obama or anyone else in the U.S. government aside from Bernie Sanders wants to turn the U.S. into a socialist economy. When Barack Obama gives a speech asking us to give up our individual property and collectively share it all, wake me up. First, it is vital to always note that we have a mixed economy that combines socialist and capitalist systems. While our system relies mostly on the capitalist system, there are times and areas of life that the free market has proved inadequate and socialist methods have been applied to provide. For example, we socialize the monitoring of volcanoes because there is simply no way the free market can profit off such an activity. We socialize much of the building of our transportation system for the same reason. Education is socialized not due to the inability of the free market to deliver, but rather our desire as a society to make sure that everyone has access to a formal education. The benefits of this far outweigh the costs to our society as a whole. The key is to use the system that better serves us as a nation in certain aspects of industry and life.

Healthcare

This brings us to the current battlefront, health care. I believe the battle is more accurately described as one about health care insurance (Despite wild claims to the contrary, implementing universal health care has absolutely nothing to do with the government being involved in the decision making process between you and your doctor. It is just about paying for the health care.) but I digress. There is no limit to the amount of times you will hear some variation of the phrase "road to socialism" used to describe the goal of universal health care. Is the government providing health care insurance to all of it's citizens socialist? Yes, it absolutely is. So is social security, so is medicare, so is the aforementioned education system. The question shouldn't be, whether or not it's socialist. It is. The question should not be whether or not universal health care will start us down the path to becoming a completely socialist economy. That's an absurd proposition using the slippery slope logical fallacy. No, the question should be similar to that of education. Is it in our best interest as a nation, to socialize the cost of health care? Do the benefits of providing everyone with access to health care outweigh the costs? That is what the debate should be centered around. Anyone who refuses to base their arguments around this does not have the nation's best interest in mind, but rather is trying to advance their ideology. I know for fact that there are good arguments on both sides to questions I proposed there are completely valid. I'd like to hear them fleshed out in a reasoned way without resorting to what amounts to scare tactics, ad hominem attacks, and slippery slope fallacies. Is that too much to ask?