Socialism requires coercion
When it comes to helping the poor, socialism claims to provide what they need by taking from those who have more. Socialism relies on collectivism to accomplish its goals.
They say " Socialism helps the poor"
What’s the best way to help the poor? Ask this question, and it’s a sure bet that someone will suggest taking from those who have and giving it to those who don’t.
To be clear, they are suggesting that your money and property don’t really belong to you but instead they belong to everyone and may be taken away and shared if enough people agree. It is one of the central beliefs of socialism.
Socialism is a system that relies on a tiny minority of officials who centrally plan and implement decisions for the common good. In a free society, your individual rights protect you from the power of government.
Under socialism, your individual rights are subject to the approval of the collective. The collective is simply another way of describing a group or mass of people united under a particular government. Socialism relies on collectivism to accomplish its goals by treating everyone’s money and property as a common, rather than a private, good.
When it comes to helping the poor, socialism claims to provide what they need by taking from those who have more. At first glance, this may seem like a compassionate use of government power.
The problem is that to accomplish this goal, socialist governments must take someone else’s money or property away before they can give it to the poor. Here’s the moral problem with this approach.
If I take something that is not mine, especially if I take it by using or threatening force, that’s still stealing. Why don’t we consider it stealing when the government takes something from us by threat of force?
Just because the taking is done by the government or with the approval of the collective, that doesn’t make it any less of a matter of stealing.
Unfortunately, socialism requires coercion in order to accomplish its goals.
Governments that embrace socialism will target the most productive members of their societies as a source of revenue or property to fund its programs. Inevitably, this leads to wasted resources and a powerful motivation not to be too successful, so as not to draw government attention.
This results in shortages and even more poverty than before. People who might have wanted to build businesses and to create wealth and opportunity will think twice before doing so if they stand a good chance of getting fleeced for their efforts.
This is why socialism has a very long record of failure wherever it has been tried.
So, how does a society truly help the poor?
By encouraging individuals to own private property and to voluntarily exchange with one another in order to create wealth. This is in harmony with human nature and also allows those who create wealth to freely share it as they choose.
This promotes authentic rather than forced charity and meets the needs of the truly poor without creating greater dependency on government.
They say " High taxes don’t cause economic problems"
Credit: The Libertas Institute
Most people accept the idea that taxes are a necessary part of life. We’re taught from an early age that money taxed away from us is what funds a large number of important government programs that help our society.
Here’s a question worth considering: Instead of making our lives better, do taxes actually cause economic problems? Most people, especially politicians, don’t believe such problems might even exist.
The truth is, a great deal of what the government does with our tax money is not in keeping with its focus of protecting our natural rights and promoting justice. It’s used, instead, for what are called entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid, etc... along with providing food stamps, education grants, farm subsidies, and funding our nation’s hundreds of military bases overseas, and a gigantic army of government workers.
The people who work for the government are often referred to as the public sector, meaning they are paid with funds taken from the public in the form of taxes.
The private sector on the other hand refers to the business owners and workers who produce the kinds of goods and services that raise our standard of living. The private sector has to create value in order for people to choose to spend their dollars with those businesses or individuals.
When the government takes a certain percentage of their money in the form of taxes, taxpayers are left with less money to spend according to their needs and wishes. If they are taxed out of 40 percent of their money, that means they only have the use of 60 percent of their income.
They must send the rest to the government rather than spending it on things they need or want , or simply saving for future needs. This means less economic activity in the private sector that would be meeting their needs by providing the things they really wanted to spend their money on.
There’s also the problem of people who are employed in the public sector being dependent on those taxpayer dollars. They may be good people indeed, but the government does not create wealth like the private sector does. It can only take the wealth generated by the private sector and transfer it to its workers or its programs.
If those same government workers were employed in the private sector, they’d have the same incentives that drive other workers in the free market to provide real value for those who choose to be their customers.
People who were allowed to keep the money they’ve earned, rather than having to give up a large portion of it as taxes, would still be free to help the needy. This is how communities helped the poor and downtrodden before government created programs funded by the taxpayers.
The economic problems caused by taxes aren’t always easy to recognize. But they are real and cannot be excused just because a particular program is based on good intentions.
They say: "Capitalism is purely about money"
It’s not uncommon to hear people talk about capitalism as if it’s purely about money. To put it another way, capitalism is sometimes thought to be something that is only for the rich.
This belief seems to be especially strong among young Americans who have been taught that capitalism favors only the rich and never the poor. They believe that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
But they’re only half right. While it’s true that the rich are getting richer, under free-market capitalism, the poor are also getting richer.
Even “poor” families in America tend to own a car, live in a modern dwelling with indoor plumbing, running water, and heating and air conditioning, have access to the internet, and own at least one TV. This is true across racial and ethnic boundaries as well as for single- and dual-parent homes.
The fact is, poverty has been falling steadily for people all around the globe. And that is a result of capitalism allowing opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Capitalism is also responsible for bringing the cost of what were once considered luxuries down to where nearly any family can afford them.
Just a couple of generations ago, a microwave oven was something most families did not have. They were expensive and could be somewhat difficult to find, depending on where you lived. The same cooking technology that would have cost a family $700 or more in 1980 (when $700 bought a lot more) can now be found for as little as $50 at just about any big box store.
Yes, there are those who figured out how to produce microwave ovens on a large enough scale that just about anyone can afford them. The entrepreneurs who created these companies have likely become quite wealthy as a result. But the wealth didn’t just stop with them.
They created jobs at the factories where microwave ovens are produced. They’ve provided opportunity for the truck drivers who deliver those ovens to the market and the jobs for the employees of the stores that sell them.
Most importantly, this type of capitalism has put a very useful tool within the reach of even the poorest members of society.
The same can be said for other things that used to be luxuries like computers, flat screen TVs, Instant Pots, air fryers, coffee machines, and much more.
Capitalism not only allowed people to build great wealth, it also allowed them to use that great wealth to support charitable causes of every sort. Prior to the 16th Amendment creating a direct income tax, citizens kept most of the money they earned and chose what to do with it.
For many, this was an opportunity to donate wealth in ways that supported their communities through new libraries, hospitals, museums, missions, soup kitchens, and other charitable organizations
Capitalism is not just about making money; it’s about improving as many people’s lives as possible
*Credit: The Libertas Institute
They say "Capitalism creates few winners and many losers"
A common myth about free-market capitalism is that it’s driven by greed and that in order for someone to succeed, another person must lose. But does capitalism really create few winners and many losers?
Before we can answer this question, we need to be sure that we’re clear about what capitalism is and what it isn’t.
Some people understand capitalism to mean that laws and regulations are created to benefit the people with capital—or wealth. This could include businesses that partner with the government to create barriers that prevent competitors from being able to enter the market.
This is what’s called crony capitalism and should not be mistaken for free market capitalism, which relies on competition to allow the best products, services, and ideas to succeed. The biggest difference between the two is that the government does not interfere in with free-market capitalism.
Free-market capitalism is what makes innovation possible, and innovation is what brings new solutions to existing problems.
But do those solutions only benefit the wealthy? Do the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer?
The reality is that the greatest achievements of free-market capitalism have tended to benefit the ordinary person by giving them access to things that were once only available to the rich or powerful.
Take, for example, the smartphone.
It wasn’t so long ago that a person would have needed to buy a calculator, a camera, a recording device, a computer, and numerous computer programs just to enjoy all the features found in a single smartphone.
Not only has capitalism made all of this and more available in a handy device that easily fits in your pocket, but it also has made it affordable for the average person to have one at a reasonable cost. The convenience and benefit of having all this technology at your fingertips is not limited to the wealthiest among us.
Likewise, anyone who has ever taken Uber or Lyft to travel in a strange city is directly benefiting from free-market capitalism that is working to create solutions for as many people as possible. A person can be picked up from any location and driven directly to their destination for a very reasonable price.
This means they don’t have to worry about renting a car, finding parking, trying to find their way around in an unfamiliar town, etc.
Would people with great wealth like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, or Oprah Winfrey be the ones to benefit from services like Uber or Lyft? Not likely. After all, they travel by private jet and limousine and have a staff of helpers who handle all their travel arrangements.
The people who use free-market capitalism in order to create solutions for as many people as possible may achieve great wealth as a result. But the reason they are being rewarded with that wealth is because they have created great value for so many people.
*Credit: The Libertas Institute