Don't Feed the Animals is a blog, written by Andrew Gonsalves, about humans: how we act, how we mate, how we talk and how we live. The term "Don't Feed the Animals" is a vague reference to a page in Chuck Palahniuk's book Choke where the narrator describes how animals in a zoo, stripped of all necessity to use their natural survival instincts, resort to masturbating all day in their cages. As society progresses and technology allows us to take the most basic things for granted, we're left with inventing innumerable ways to occupy ourselves during all the free time we have. We make the cage our home.
Collectivism is the result of a society that is not content to put up with the petty inconveniences of individualism. They say, "Competition has taken us this far, but we can only become a higher society if we organize toward a common good." I admit that I was at this specific state of mind when I wrote my diatribe against capitalism last year (that nobody read because it was 3500 words). I had just watched Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" and was seething with hatred toward corporations and banks who seemed to have hijacked our state and economy. What I did not realize at the time was that these monopolistic entities had come to power with the help of anti-competitive measures, un-liberal loopholes bored into the legislature. I feel now that my reaction should not have been to embrace socialism, but to point out the flaws in our capitalist system that go against liberal principles.
The main point that Hayek tries to get through is that individual freedom is more important than any other cause. When I came to understand this, I felt like I had just betrayed an old friend. I have always identified myself as a liberal, holding individual freedom above all other virtues, but I had been seduced by my own idealized selflessness. I had felt that, through socialism, I could share the benefits to which I am privy with those who need them and cannot afford it. I had seen socialism as a group effort to get our future headed in the right direction, but Hayek sees it much, much differently.
First, we observe, collectivism is a march toward a common goal, but we cannot be convinced that this goal will satisfy everyone who is obligated to carry the burden. It is one thing to be screwed by fortune, it is quite another to be screwed by the state. Second, a greater equality requires arbitrary treatment of all individuals, which is a flagrant offense to the Rule of Law. In a liberal society, the Rule of Law (rule, in the sense that a king rules a kingdom) is a state in which laws and their implications are known beforehand so that an individual can make a judgment on whether to obey them or not. In a society where the Rule of Law is ineffective, individuals are subject to arbitrary charges, with arbitrary consequences, for arbitrary causes. Third, financial planning (from the government perspective) is necessary to escape the "inconveniences" of liberal capitalism. That is, in order to ensure stability, we must take a measured approach to market entry, wages and regulations. The reality of this is that there is no way to plan just a little; it eventually becomes a total conversion, with measures being taken in every area to batten down the hatches. Planning leads to complete financial oversight by the state, which is no more stable than capitalism and far less fun. Finally, factoring that socialism takes power away from the individual and gives it to the state, and that socialism is a reaction against slow-moving democracy, a typical socialist leader will be one who claims to be able to plain get things done. Beware this man, as the ends always justify the means to a government that subsists on collective groupthink.
During the reading of this book, I picked a few fights with this viewpoint to get some arguments on the record. Many responses centered around the success of small "democratic" socialist societies scattered throughout the world, but nobody could point to a current socialist country of any consequence that wasn't currently corrupt. While Wikipedia lists only a few countries as socialist, there are socialist policies that exist in many democratic governments. Some, like Iran, appear from the outside as republics, but are run internally by too-powerful governments. As I examined each of Hayek's points on socialism, I recalled some stirring similarities in the methods invoked by George W. Bush's administration of the USA. Recently, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals, my alarm was so great that I couldn't even piece together a blog post without sounding like a crazed conspiracy theorist. When I take a look at the free world imagined under classical liberalism, I start to regret ever hoping for the government to protect me from the evil corporations. They are becoming one and the same.
When I asked my co-worker about the Supreme Court ruling and what it means for lobbyists and their influence on government, his response surprised me. I was expecting him to be as livid as I was about the ruling, but his focus was really where it should be. He gave a good example of what all liberals should be focused on: the basics, the big picture, the principles. He said, "It isn't the ruling that worries me. It wouldn't mean anything if the politicians didn't have so much power in the first place." And so I realized my initial error of reacting to the issue instead of referring to the lesson of the ideology. As a course of action, we should not be trying to counter the law. We should be fighting for our voice to be heard, to re-establish this country as a democratic republic with representatives of the people, not the power.
36 nibbles:
"It isn't the ruling that worries me. It wouldn't mean anything if the politicians didn't have so much power in the first place."
Ustwo said something eerily similar to this about four years ago. The point I made in response was simple: power rests with both the government and the market, as it should be. The idea that senators, congressmen and the president somehow rule all and private industry is bent to their wills is absurd, it ignores reality. Consider what incumbents and candidates are willing to do to secure campaign financing. Joe Lieberman would rape his own mother if the medical industry so wished.
As human beings, we are always both individuals and members of a collective. Unless you're the last man on earth, there are fundamental interdependencies that cannot be denied. If one is to be truly objective and free of bias, one must admit there is a proper balance between individualism and collectivism.
Collectivism exists because regardless of what some unthinking people might assert, we do have common goals. Individualism cannot help with fixing the environment or providing clean water. Individually, one cannot hope to tackle such projects.
BTW, if you're looking for a good example of a social democracy, check out Norway. It's not perfect, but Norway has very little political corruption, especially compared to the US. Norway would be a much better example of a social democracy than Iran, which is an Islamic theocracy.
Will, thanks for your thoughtful response. I have two points to make about Norway: First, their constitution makes no mention of any socialist principles and second, their willingness to subject themselves to a collective mind is largely due to their homogeneous cultural makeup. All Scandinavian countries are like that; very low in the diversity factor. You cannot take what works for them and apply it to a more diverse population.
Next, about where the power lies: both the market and the government have done a good job of disengaging the public with their own government. I don't know if I articulated this in the article well enough, but when I said that the government and the corporations are becoming one and the same, I meant that the government's priorities are reflecting those of the corporations, which is what your sentiment was in your second paragraph, I believe.
Finally, though your intentions are noble by stating that we are all a part of a collective by default, Hayek makes the following point: Both individualism and collectivism have the same goal (better society), it is the means that are different. Then, in practice, when you follow those means, the individualist goal remains the same while the collectivist goal becomes a moving target, simply because of what a government must do to achieve it. Respecting the rights of the individual is the only way to ensure freedom.
I haven't read this book but it seems to align very well with my libertarian perspective. I think your last point in the comment above is a critical one that people don't realize:
"Both individualism and collectivism have the same goal (better society), it is the means that are different."
This is a crucial point to bridging the gap between political ideologies. It helps people to know that the goals are the same and that all that is being argued is methodology. Maybe we can reduce some of the Left-Right polarization with thoughts like these...
Johnny: If you choose to read this book, keep in mind that it is about liberalism, not libertarianism. But yeah, one of the things we all need to realize is that we all want a better world. The question is how to get it.
This is an interesting post and Seems to express some reasonable perspective. I haven't read the book but am able to see both pros and cons to socialism. I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts:
1. Powerful government is scary because it also has legal authority. The upside is that in a representative government, it is also accountable, contestable, and removable. While power in private hands poses a smaller legal danger (at least on paper), it is also accountable to no one.
2. Socialist states can produce dangers, agreed. Still, the implied dichotomy above suggest that capitalism is the only alternative, a system which is Darwinian to the bitter end. Capitalism functions on pure competition, the logical end of which is monopoly, followed by conglomerate monopoly, and culminating in an oppressive imbalance of power between the citizen and the corporate executive. For all practical purposes, the endgame of capitalism is monarchy, which is why monarchies have been found in virtually every culture on Earth as we climbed out of the neolithic. While I agree that socialism can lead to burdensome government, it is nor more necessary to surrender all socailist benefits out of fear of Big Brother than it is to surrender all free maket ideals out of fear of Divine Rule of Kings.
It's my realtively baseless assertion, based on my own speculation, that any system which can be refined and honed to propel intellect and altrusim toward positions of power, and which can maintain sufficient flexibility to adapt to progress,, can bu sustained. The global trend toward socialist/capitalist hybrids seems to me to be the safest route. Only time will tell, I suppose.
Next on your reading list? I'd suggest
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
Sounds interesting I will give it a read. It seems to me that throughout history an example of every ideology working and not working can be identified. It seems to be more about execution, and even then nothing has been found to be sustainable long term. Anything in its purist form would probably succeed. The issue is that frictionless ice does not exist.
The issue I am struggling with is whether pondering any of these issues makes a difference or not in our current society. While the people aren't dancing while Rome is burning they do seem mildly entertained by the spectacle.
After reading several books about the situation in Somalia I will say that I have come to believe that the only thing worse than government is no government.
Thanks for the comments, guys. You've been much more civil here than on reddit. I'd like to say that I'm getting a lot of criticism for being "weak-minded" in reference to the ease at which I flop from one ideology to the next based off of inflammatory statements made by authors and filmmakers. I would like to clarify that politics and ideologies are not my strong point, I just want a better world (like everyone else) and I am constantly trying to find ways to realize that. The point of this blog post is to illustrate the journey I took from one end of the spectrum from the other based on my stances on issues, while losing sight of the real issue: my principles. In the end, I realized, not that so-and-so was right or wrong, but that if I want to really make a difference in the world, I have to stick to the basics of what I believe. In any case, you'll find me a much harder mind when it comes to atheism and philosophy.
Mister E: You have me agreeing that the endgame of capitalism is monarchy, which is why laissez-faire capitalism is not good. However, liberalism is not synonymous with laissez-faire. If the law is set according to the fears we have of capitalism, and all is understood about what will happen in the case of monopolies, we can avoid that endgame.
D: Thanks for the suggestion. I will probably get to it after my current project, which is evolutionary biology.
Kurt: I often have the same thought - does any of this even matter? That's a subject for a later date.
If you think competition leads to monopoly, here's a challenge for you: name one US monopoly that:
1. Became a monopoly without help from the government
AND
2. When it achieved that status, raised prices and restricted output, which are the bad things monopolies are supposed to do.
As a proponent of both libertarian/anarchist and collectivist principles, I struggle constantly to find a balance between these competing ideologies.
History shows any surrender of individual freedom is inevitably a slippery slope ending in fascism - however, it's difficult to deny that humans have evolved to behave not just as individuals, but as members of a collective. Just as great progress is accomplished by individuals, so it is accomplished by groups.
So the question then becomes, what components of these competing systems should we implement? Or is it even possible to find a balance? Why does the slippery slope always appear?
An interesting experiment would be to create a truly 'free' society and let it operate for 500 years or so, to see what happens. To my knowledge, such a system has never existed - at least, for any useful length of time. Proponents of Individualism would do well to remember
that they are supporting a theoretical system.
Welcome to the dark side, brother. Prepare to be ostracized if you're on a coast. You should probably read Ayn Rand sometime soon, too.
@Steve: My specific knowledge of monopoly in Amercan history is insufficient to cite an example in this specific case. I've had discussions in the past on the matter, most memorably when I was tending bar. One of my guests insisted that raw capitalism does not produce monopoly, and that monopolies do not inherently raise prices or reduce service. My response from behind the bar was this:
If I had an advantage over the other bars in town such that I could afford to take a loss long enough to lower my prices in such a way that they went out of business, I would. And I would do it because the profit lost in that period would be outweighed in the long term by the increased margin I would be able to reap without competition. And the beer which I promptly serve now for $3.00 would be served at my leisure for $4.00 once the thirsty had no where else to turn.
Capitalism is beautiful in the sense that it is a purely competitive system and aligns perfectly with the brutal nature of the natural world. It is in harmony with millions of years of evolution. As was the human world found in the Old Testament, neither of which delivers any sense of egalitarianism, conscience, or basic human decency.
Steve: Your challenge would be an excellent one if it weren't for a corporation's influence on government to create conditions in which they are capable of forming a monopoly.
Brendan: I really enjoyed reading your comment. It reminds me of the balance we all struggle to obtain when we see the benefits and inevitabilities of different ideals.
ranter: I have Atlas Shrugged in my library, but I am not brave enough to read it. In any case, from the meta synopsis I've read, I don't agree with the ideas.
Am I to understand that is better to trust my freedom to a multinational corporation-run government in which the individual can never compete with the giant international "collective" (read corporation) Now with unrestricted buying power of elected officials (thanks, Justice Alito) What's to discuss? We zoom toward totalitarianism either way. Did not today's news indicate that the President has the unrestricted right to exterminate American citizens considered security risks? Freedom? Not sure I understand what is meant by the term at present. We have socialism for corporations too big to fail. Is Socialism for US based, international money-firms good, but bad for US citizens?
Please explain, I am confused.
@Mister E:
If you started making money at $4 a bottle and it was a reasonable profit someone else would start a bar on the other side of town charging the same price. This way there is a time/cost benefit. I save time going to the bar closer to me and still get the same beer at the same cost. Plus they may have better wings or burgers. Competition allows entrepreneurs to experiment with service/cost without burdening anyone with taxes, regulations and bureaucrats. This is what a free economy would entail.
There are no natural monopolies. Even Rockefeller did not have a true 100% monopoly of the oil industry and his share of the market was down to somewhere like 67% when the government "won" their case against him. I do not believe laissez-faire leads to monopolist companies. Microsoft essentially has a monopoly, but yet Linux and Apple still have market share. People decide on whether or not to buy a PC, Mac or build there own.
The discussion here has been very civil and it is much appreciated compared to some flame wars one sees out in the general populace. This is much appreciated.
rapture: I'm not sure where you got those implications from. I assure you my stance is that I do not want to submit any power to a corporation or government. I'd like to think that the ideology I choose reflects that.
Matthew: I agree, I am very grateful that everyone brought their civil tone to the table today.
@Matthew
Three words: Cost of Entry.
In related news, wrt. "how are monopolies bad": How was Microsoft supported by the state?
People have to act collectively to protect themselves from workplace exploitation and environmental destruction. What would you call that collective organization if not "government"? Throw in universal healthcare and you have the same socialism that gets vilified by teabaggers, free marketers and libertarians. The only one who loses, when we have properly socialized our collective interests, is the corporation that wanted to cut costs by not cleaning up after it's mess or cut your healthcare just when you get sick.
Salsicha: One point that Hayek makes is that socialism is often the default response to the inconveniences of competition. The solution is not to counter the movement, but to re-imagine the rules of the system that allows such exploitation to work. With regard to the Rule of Law, there should be laws in place to prevent such exploitation. So, while allowing individuals to keep their sovereignty, we also ensure that competition remains... competitive.
I have two points to make about Norway: First, their constitution makes no mention of any socialist principles
Define "socialism" then? The Norwegian constitution it requires universal health insurance, something by US definition is "socialistic". By claiming that socialism can only be considered socialism if there's an outright declaration of socialist principles, then pretty much all modern social democrats wouldn't even be included in the category of socialism (since they don't read Karl Marx, but they still call themselves socialist).
and second, their willingness to subject themselves to a collective mind is largely due to their homogeneous cultural makeup.
That's a tired old stereotype. Scandinavia today is hardly homogenous. Prior to modern immigration it was only racially homogenous, not culturally. Seems to me this argument consists of "well, Scandinavia don't have Mexicans and blacks".
The Soviet Union wasn't homogenous. It was dozens of states with hundreds of different identities. The notion that socialism only works because of social homogeneity is a completely false argument.
M: You have to dismiss political rhetoric if you're going to talk about theory. Just because a redneck calls universal healthcare socialism doesn't make it so. There are many ways that universal health care can escape the socialist definition. Single-payer, public OPTION, etc. They also call Obama a fascist and a communist - they should make up their minds. Socialism, I guess, along with Liberalism, has changed in the eyes of the armchair philosophers. That doesn't change what it really is.
Now, no country is completely homogeneous, but consider that when the current Scandinavian governments were established, they were homogeneous. Since then, they have attracted outsiders who were interested in living at those standards. Denmark is observed to be the most homogeneous 1st world country. However, if you want to see what happens to a diverse country upon which socialism descends, look at your example of Russia. It isn't pretty.
So first I would argue if you're going to talk about logical debates and really consider the possibilities you've already made two huge errors that you really need to clean out of your head. You need to quickly read two entries in Wikipedia, to get yourself aligned with the false assumptions your making.
You need to read the section on "Slippery Slope" and "No True Scotsman" I'll leave it to you to find the entries. That said. We always make choices, to assume a single step toward socialism ensures we end up in a totalitarian state, seems pretty feeble. The US as a nation has had socialist policies for as long as there's been a federal income tax, close to 100 years. We certainly haven't fallen into the a socialist totalitarian structure. If you want to argue we are, then you're arguing a point that suggests no matter what we do that's where will end up. Really what are the metrics, how do you decided what time frame this is supposed to happen in?
Secondly the Scandinavian countries are pretty socialist. By anyone's metric, and they are also now pretty diverse. Talk to any of them they will tall you about the ethnic problems they are having. Problems they I'm sure will solve, but life is about problems and solutions. With the Scandinavian's your making the "NO true Scotsman" argument. Read about it.
Wow, this is an excellent post. I'm so happy I found it--on Reddit Politics, as well! Who would have thought something so grounded would have made it into the circle-jerk pit? As an ex-socialist myself, reading works like this is the only way to see the forest through the trees. Thanks again, and keep up the good work. I'll add you to my RSS feed.
@Matthew:
You're correct, I don't argue that competition continues to exist on some level. On small scales, I don't think one barman could box out all others, nor would they probably be inclined to.
My speculation (and that's all I've got on the subject as I'm not a student of historical economics) is that the larger picture changes things quite a bit. With sufficient financial resources comes additional political influence, which filters down to influence in regulation, zoning, and any number of other factors which can be used to control or curtial the success of lesser rivals. So I suppose I use the term "monopoly" in less than an exact sense.
The 67% which Rockefeller held (I'm trusting you here, I don't know this to be true) was not achieved without influential persons crushing rising competitors to the best of their abilities. When the dominant businessmen of the 19th century started buying railroads, the game changed to their advantage and the aggregate impact of their influence in multiple industries served to severely limit the potential of competitors to rival them. It's good business sense, it's good tactically, it's totally commendable on a strategic basis. But it also exemplifies the impact a particularly successful and enterprising individual can have when they decide to unlevel the playing field through market dominance.
In pure capitalism, there's nothing to get in the way of one company owning all rail, all trucking, all carrier services, all radio stations in a market, all television in a market, all print media in a market, etc. The model itself breeds tyranny as the logical end result. We're watching it unfold in a humorously Kurt Vonnegutian world, where Coca-Cola, Google, Microsoft and Exxon own nearly every other major company in the country. and in a few years, maybe one will buy the others and we will see the logical end of capitalism: one huge oligarchy of influential business people who exeert massively more influence on policy decisions than the rest of the citizenry. Only they can't be voted out of office.
GYNot: Look, I totally get where you're coming from, but I disagree that I am employing these fallacies to the blatant extent that they were devised. First of all, I recognize Hayek's argument as something that appears to be a slippery slope, but he backs it up with historical evidence. Now, political theory is no exact science, but just because something appears to be a slippery slope doesn't mean it isn't true. Next, when talking about large populations, one will inevitably talk about majorities, trends, and other fuzzy figures. They sill then start to use words like "all" and "everyone" and "they" - but they don't mean 100% and that is important to understand when reading.
Hal,
All governmental constitutions are socialist. Governments are collectivist by their nature. And Norway is much more diverse than the US was when the Constitution was written. I've not had a chance to visit Norway yet, but my understanding is that it's relatively diverse.
You said: "I don't know if I articulated this in the article well enough, but when I said that the government and the corporations are becoming one and the same, I meant that the government's priorities are reflecting those of the corporations, which is what your sentiment was in your second paragraph, I believe."
I agree with this to a point, but doesn't this reflect an anti-libertarian view? There are three basic centers of power: government, market, and consumers/citizens. When one becomes too powerful, it begins to influence the other two more than it itself is influenced. Now? It's corporations. We've slipped a bit too far from the balance between government, people, and market power. A libertarian would argue that, while there are some roles for government, most of the power should rest with the market. They then go on to confuse the interest of the market as the interest of the people, which is a mistake. People and market are not one and the same, they have different goals and interests.
"Finally, though your intentions are noble by stating that we are all a part of a collective by default, Hayek makes the following point: Both individualism and collectivism have the same goal (better society), it is the means that are different."
I have to respectively disagree. The market exists to profit, not to benefit society. SThose arguing for the market try and make the point that, as a byproduct of seeking profit, the market CAN help society, the truth is that when that happens (and I am aware that it does happen), it's more a happy accident than a primary goal. Let's say I want to sell solar panels, something which I feel would benefit society. Don't I also have a responsibility to charge as much as I can without driving customers away? Don't I have a responsibility to challenge and even drive out of business other solar panel manufacturers? And if I discover that the solar panels industry cannot provide enough profit, isn't it my responsibility to find something that does, like coal burning? My point is simple: the private market exists to grow its own worth. The government exists with the intent of providing a collectivist structure which can supply things which the market cannot, which it turns out is quite a bit.
Next to read I'd suggest works on socialism from below. Maybe first start with http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm. You seem to equate socialism with socialism from above. Next check out works from Marxists on what socialism really is and what libertarians gets so wrong, which is mostly history and very much so how to combat our loss of democracy.
Socialism from below, the Marxist tradition, is democracy at the lowest levels. Check out the http://www.internationalsocialist.org/ and http://www.haymarketbooks.org/ for more information and readings :).
That said, I read a lot of libertarian works and being a programming know a lot of libertarians. Never only pay attention to one side. I'll be picking up this book myself now, thanks!
The title of the book is "the road to serfdom" which was Hayek's predition that socialist goverments like those of western europe would inevitably lead to totalitarian goverments. That didn't happen.
The book is good on the weakness of planned economies, but there really was no slippery slope. Western europe has a very strong safety net and is perfectly free.
Socialism is the only way toward survival of the human race.
Remember, it's either socialism or barbarism.
Sorry for the second post, but as a person who opposes the existence of a State, yet supports a welfare state currently... I think Chomsky does best at explaining this reasoning, and I think it may apply to you as well:
One can, of course, take the position that we don't care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don't pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow -- the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive.
Will: I would like to state that I am a liberal, not a libertarian. In any case, Hayek states that the government SHOULD control what the market cannot be depended on to provide and I agree with this.
Tristan: Thanks for the suggestions. Your contributions along with others have made this a very enlightening day here on the blog.
joeo: I brought this same point up to my co-worker, but he incredulously said, "Do you expect it to happen over night?"
Kull: Says the dude named after a barbarian.
"The main point that Hayek tries to get through is that individual freedom is more important than any other cause. "
This is nonsense if taken literally, and meaningless if not. If taken literally, the supremacy of individual freedom will require us to allow individuals to do anything they want, up to and including committing murder. If we reject that outcome, then we must acknowledge that individual freedom must be balanced against the common good. And at this point we leave the realm of ideology, and enter into the political arena, where decisions about how to balance these competing interests are made.
Pete: You're distorting that line into absurdity. If you commit murder, you're infringing on others freedoms and therefore in violation of the law. Hypothetically, you can expand an individual's sphere of freedoms until it infringes upon another man's identical freedom. That is where you draw the line.
Andrew - Nice post. I am a little reminded of that scene in "Good Will Hunting," when he is giving the Harvard guy a ration of shit for arguing straight from his class's book list for the semester. He then says something about how next year he will be arguing the exact opposite because he read another book convincing book that argued a different point. I haven't read "The Road to Serfdom," but I have read a lot of similarly idealistic books. My problem with them is that they are completely black and white, and while they can argue a strong point, they don't seem to account for all of the gray areas that exist in the real world.
Rather than replacing your outrage at corporations for outrage at socialists, it might be beneficial to take the salient points from each to adopt a world-view that takes the best of both. We all sacrifice some degree of personal freedom in order to live within society. "Socialism" helps pay for street lights, public services and all sorts of other things that you and I enjoy without thinking about.
Martin: Thanks for the comment. I would like to state that Hayek clearly announces that the government should control whatever the market cannot be depended on to provide. This includes roads and utilities.
Socialism is about offering a check against the market, not wiping it out. The whole point of republican buerocracy is to nullify slippery slope effects by making it hard for those in power to get things done quickly. It is easy to argue against collectivism when you get to define it. A good government should be able to experiment without going overboard.
I disagree with any sense of socialism removing individualism. That is a red herring, socialism is purely about market conditions, not about civil matters.
It is important that we don't treat economic theories as religions. They are not either true or false, but have different pros and cons depending on the reality in which they are imposed.
Post a Comment