“What's wrong with a little Socialism?”

Yesterday, I met my liberal Democrat friend for our weekly breakfast, a tradition we have continued for many years. We talk family, friends, sports and, yes, even politics. Nothing has changed for decades, except he now has fruit and bran muffins; I have stuck with artery clogging fried eggs, up, toast (not whole wheat), high cholesterol breakfast meats and potatoes. He is lean and trim, and has had bypass surgery, I am overweight and disgustingly healthy. Life is not fair.

“So,” he said, chomping a dry muffin. “you must be impressed with the way that Obama has hit the ground running.” He flashed a wide grin, bits of muffin clinging on his lips, teeth and chin.

I nearly choked on a forkful of gooey egg, greasy bacon and starchy potato. “Impressed,” I said, swallowing a heart stopping load of food. “Impressed does not begin to describe my feelings.” I took a draught of my regular coffee, laden with cream and sugar.

My friend looked perplexed, and said, as he took a sip of his herb tea and honey, “What does that mean?”
I told him how appalled I am at the turn this country has taken since Obama's inauguration on January 20, just 4 weeks ago. As he looked on, shocked to discover that there was someone who was not riding a wave of euphoria. His reading of the New York Times and viewing of MSNBC and CNN lead him to believe that the entire country is on a post-inauguration high.

“It means,” I said, “that I am saddened and concerned to see our country make a 180 and head down the road of socialism.”

“So,” he said, “what's wrong with a little socialism? Capitalism has not done so well lately.”
My friend's sentiment is not unlike what many citizens and politicians are saying, or implying lately, sometimes even from the right. In normal times, just saying, “socialism” would be enough to end a political argument. But these are clearly not normal times, so let's take a stab at answering the question directly.

Simply put, socialism is a system where citizens are promised results, not just opportunity. Our Constitution promises the “pursuit of happiness,” but does not guarantee that any particular citizen will attain anything, but will not be restricted from pursuing any legal goal. Socialism preaches that every citizen has the right to certain entitlements, and the state endeavors to provide them to its citizens. Socialists believe that under capitalism, too much wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of too few, who then exploit the less privileged. Socialists advocate a more even distribution of wealth and power, “spreading it around,” to quote a recent Obama phrase.

Under the socialist ideal, effort is rewarded, regardless of results, and accumulation of wealth by a few is prevented, so that more may enjoy the benefits of what society has to offer. The sad fact is that often even a minimal effort is not required, and everyone gets entitlements, deserved or not.

So, what is wrong with wanting to make sure that all citizens are provided for, and that more can have a better lifestyle by taking from the overabundance of the privileged few?

The problem is that to implement socialism, basic freedoms have to be curtailed or abolished. For starters, socialism is built on government ownership or very tight control of industry and commerce. This means, obviously, that citizens' rights to freely pursue business opportunities are severely limited by the government. Property rights must also be greatly curtailed, and the personal accumulation of wealth abolished. The government becomes the arbitrator of who succeeds, and to what extent.

There are those, notably liberal Democrats, who argue that government can provide this oversight and regulation without impinging on freedom, and without autocratic governance. Unfortunately, there is not a single historical example where a democratic society and socialistic principles have co-existed.

So, to the point, what is wrong with “a little socialism?” Nothing, if you don't care about freedom and liberty.