Socialism: stimulating growth at the expense of freedom

Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2019 01:09 pm
In Trump's state of the union address, he said that "America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free and we will stay free"

In response, Bernie Sanders counterargued that "people are not truly free when they can’t afford health care, prescription drugs, or a place to live. People are not free when they cannot retire with dignity or feed their families."

Huffington Post then quoted MLK, saying "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.’ It builds on the success of many other countries around the world that have done a far better job than we have in protecting the needs of their working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor."


Why aren't free people achieving affordable health (care), housing, etc.? Why do free people keep allowing themselves to be dominated by business instead of taking the reigns of their own destinies by achieving the knowledge and skills necessary to live free and responsibly without government intervention?

Could it be because of socialism that they don't? After all, why else can some drug company raise the price of a drug to hundreds of thousands of dollars except because they know there is some chance of getting some insurance fund or rich person to pay for it? And how would all that money be available except because of all the fiscal stimulus and bailouts used to re-inflate the economy recession after recession?

By stimulating growth, the socialist approach to economic governance continues to reinforce and protect the vast disparities they criticize. As long as they reinforce those disparities by intervening in a receding economy to re-inflate it with stimulus spending, the costs of such things as health care, higher education, and everything else necessary for free people to take care of themselves will remain high.

So the question is how can we go beyond socialism so that all the people can utilize liberty instead of socialism to achieve a good life, society/economy, and environment? I don't think we can even begin to answer this question until the proponents of socialism acknowledge the problem and aspire to come up with approaches to the general welfare that rely on liberty instead of social-economic control.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 757 • Replies: 1
No top replies

Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2019 04:06 pm
Mnunchin's claim about socialism also suggests socialism when he says, ""Companies need to be able to allocate capital. That's something that is important to the growth of the U.S. economy," Mnuchin said. "It's a fundamental premise that if companies can't invest the capital productively, they return it to shareholders. That gives shareholders the right to invest in other areas."

If investors and companies aren't able to save money without reinvesting it, that creates a growth mandate. In order for people to have the liberty to invest, not investing has to be an option.

Otherwise, you have a form of socialism where business and investors/corporations may be deciding how to allocate money instead of government, but they are still under coercive pressure to invest, lest growth subside and recession/deflation occur.

Recession and deflation are key to liberating people from growth/inflation-driven investment pressures. If we are forced to invest rather than save because bull markets are never allowed to recede, then we are no longer at liberty to choose when and if to invest, only how to.
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » Socialism: stimulating growth at the expense of freedom
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2023 at 08:36:54