Thursday, October 11, 2012

Socialism or needed regulation, they ain't the same thing

It seems every where one turns, there are cries that Obama is a socialist, that the country is becoming socialist, and on and on ad nauseum.

One, do many of these people even know what socialism is?  In short, it often means state ownership of the means of production.  Is any major party candidate calling for government takeover of all companies?  I haven't heard of any.  Is it co-operatives?  Could be, but they are operated by their members, not the government.  For a more complex discussion of socialism, see the Wikipedia entry on socialism.

Two, are those orchestrating the cries of socialism those who want no government regulation unless it is to their benefit.  Is it polluters who cry socialism when they are called to task?  Is it those who cut corners on safety of workers or consumers?  Is it those who would cheat customers or not provide customers with sufficient information?

Considering the sources of the orchestration, I would say its those who want to operate without any government regulation at all.  They don't want to pay taxes for all the public goods they depend on, including an educated work force and an infra-structure of highways, water, and sewer.

In short, they want to privatize profit but socialize losses or costs.

Ironically, Adam Smith, the guru of so-called free-marketers, and many of the writers of the U.S. Constitution called for regulation in varying degrees.