Socialism is the revenge of the incompetent. It is the vain hope that, "because I am incompetent to make it in the market, I can use political power to coerce from the productive an income for myself."
That's more close to the Marxist version.
But socialism may also arise from the liberal guilt of precisely those who are competetent and do very well. This is the largest factor for many multi-millionairs to vote Democratic. There was a famous robber baron (I do not recall his name) in Russia who financed Lenin becasue he believed in his, extreme version of socialism.
This liberal guilt rather that the evny of the proletariat is what leads the present-day Europe to socialism as well. And even among the American middle class, one often hears, "We are so fortunate in this country..."
The socialist then adds a fake veneer of altruism... To disagree with socialists, you do not need to villify them. For many of them, this veneer was not fake.
...to that little plan by saying, "and we'll take care of The Poor," or The Environment One has to differentiate private and public goods. Unfortunately, it is not commonly known that markets have a sever limitation in that they cannot lead to the production of public goods, such as police, public roads, etc. Protection of environmebnt is one of them; it can be provided by the government, not markets.
or whatever the self-aggrandizing ruse happens to be today. Nothing self-agrondising about any of the ebove. There is an equity-efficienct dilemma that does not have a solution: whatever improves fairness and equality in society also removes incentives for production. The problem is where one draws a line between equity and efficiency. The markets take care of efficiency --- and only in production of private goods.
Really? The tragedy of the commons? LOL! Boy are you telling that to the wrong person! Lookie here.
Now as for public v private goods, that is not how the socialist sees it. Our ersatz altruist doesn't look at 'The Poor' as a collection of individuals at all, it is more of a mental abstraction requiring somebody else's money to help him feel better. To our limousine-liberill-feigned-altruists however, "The Poor" are a voting bloc that helps them abscond with the democratic power to control the use of private property. That makes the poor a useful asset that can be purchased and controlled with somebody else's money.
Both poverty and the environment can be managed through markets. With the former, you just don't know how. Go learn.
I will have to beg to differ with your opinion on this. Up until the 20th century, these services, were, in fact, provided either by the free market (the people) or by LOCAL municipalities. Not until AFTER 1913 did the federal government decide to take over control of said services (after the income tax ban was removed, remember?) and they have been steadily taking over control and functionality of more and more ever since (health care, retirement, education, roads, federal policing agencies, land ownership!, etc.). Who is now the largest land-owner in the Country. The U. S. government, that's who. They now own over approx. 45% of the ENTIRE land mass of the U.S. and much of it is being put completely off-limits to public use under agreement with the United Nations treaty of biodiversity and the desertification treaty (RIO+5). This is being done to systematically herd the population into "sustainable development" areas which are being put into place to effect more stringent controls of everything from food production to transportation.
Is the U. S. totally Socialist? Not completly, but we're getting there faster than any of us want to think.
Charles Murray wrote a fascinating essay back in 1984 entitled "The Constraints of Helping", wherein he laid down the Laws of Social Programs:
1. The Law of Imperfect Solution--Any objective rule that defines eligibility for a social transfer program will irrationally exclude some persons.
2. The Law of Unintended Rewards--Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer.
3. The Law of Net Harm--The less likely it is that the unwanted behavior will change voluntarily, the more likely it is that a program to induce change will cause net harm.
He gives scenarios to illustrate each. Anyway, it's an interesting essay.