Rahn: Socialism Means Coercion

Washington Times ^ | Monday, January 25, 2016 | Richard W.Rahn

[JayGalt]

Do you know what socialism is? Hillary Clinton struggled to find an answer when recently asked. Socialism is a system in which the government owns or controls the means of production, and allocates resources and rewards.

Sen. Bernie Sanders proudly proclaims himself a "democratic socialist," and many in the Democratic Party seem to have no problem with it and, in fact, are embracing him and his ideas.

Why does socialism always fail, and why will Bernie Sanders' schemes and, to a lesser extent, Hillary's Obamacare version, also fail?

Under a capitalist free-market system, the business person seeks to produce goods and services that the consumer wants at the lowest possible cost - which includes having the smallest and most productive work force possible - in order to maximize profits. Under the socialist model, the political leaders decide what the consumers should have (which is often very different from what they want or need)....

I did search and hope this is not a duplicate post.

[JayGalt]

Now back to Bernie Sanders who has proposed "Medicare for all" as one of his many schemes. Professor Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts has examined the Sanders plan (and has no political ax to grind), and he estimates it would cost $40.9 trillion between 2017 and 2026. Hospitals and doctors would be forced to take huge cuts, driving many out of the medical profession, and reducing innovation and standards in health care. Patients would be forced to wait in long queues. It would be like the present failed Veterans Administration health system for all.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Tyranny is a vital component of socialism.

[Daveinyork]

Milton and Rose Friedman, in “Capitalism and Freedom” showed how there is no such thing as democratic socialism.

In socialism, everything is either owned or controlled by the state. If someone wants to run for office, he is essentially running against his boss, or his boss’s boss, which puts his job at risk. Assuming he can take the risk, every medium with which he would get his message out is owned or controlled by the state - his boss, or his boss’s boss.

As a result, voters never really get a choice of candidates, and especially not any candidates who would be opposed to socialism, itself.

The amount of socialism already infecting the Western economies, including the USA, explains the dearth of real choices in our elections. Public financing of campaigns would seal the deal for good.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

If you do slip up and post a duplicate it won't be the first or last.

Don't let the mudslinging around here hold you back, tell them to kiss your grits.

[griswold3]

“In socialism, everything is either owned or controlled by the state.”
Private ownership is allowed under socialism. The means of production is controlled by regulation and taxation.

[Daveinyork]

“Private ownership is allowed under socialism.”

That depends on how pervasive the socialism is. Under pure socialism, there is no private ownership of anything.

[JimRed]

Billy-Boy Ayers will be one of Bernie’s top advisers. He’ll advise on how to off the 25 million or so of us who can’t be “reeducated”.

A preemptive strike may be in order, before Billy-Boy gets secret service protection.