This is hardly a novel idea, but I think that every kid in school ought to be subjected to a continuous month of socialism. The rest is capitalism. Then they can make actual informed decisions about which they prefer.
As I get older, I get less extreme in my views. I'd love to be able to "opt out" of Social Security and welfare, but in practice wealthy societies (all modern technological ones) do not let people literally starve to death if they make sufficiently bad decisions. Given that fact, perhaps it's reasonable to demand that everyone at risk of needing to be bailed out in that way (that is, everyone except hermits would might die alone without anyone knowing) contribute something to the communal costs of such bailouts.
Maybe if not letting people starve to death was the bar, involuntary socialism would be tolerable. The actual bar in modern social democracies is far, far higher and mostly unattainable (e.g., guarantee that everyone has a high level of education and healthcare no matter how lazy and irresponsible they are), and trying to reach it does more harm than good.
The distinction between voluntary and involuntary socialism is noted far too rarely.
This applies to so many things: NPR funding, carbon footprints, USAID, etc. if you want money to go towards something, put your money towards that thing. Don’t take money from landscapers and carpenters abs restaurant owners to fund the things that YOU think are important.
If progressives (who tend to be fairly prosperous) put their money where their mouths were they wouldn’t even need taxes or legislation. I guess that would be less fun, though… and more expensive (for them).
This is hardly a novel idea, but I think that every kid in school ought to be subjected to a continuous month of socialism. The rest is capitalism. Then they can make actual informed decisions about which they prefer.
Typo: "paint my oneself" >>> "paint by oneself".
Voluntary socialism can be cool.
As I get older, I get less extreme in my views. I'd love to be able to "opt out" of Social Security and welfare, but in practice wealthy societies (all modern technological ones) do not let people literally starve to death if they make sufficiently bad decisions. Given that fact, perhaps it's reasonable to demand that everyone at risk of needing to be bailed out in that way (that is, everyone except hermits would might die alone without anyone knowing) contribute something to the communal costs of such bailouts.
Maybe if not letting people starve to death was the bar, involuntary socialism would be tolerable. The actual bar in modern social democracies is far, far higher and mostly unattainable (e.g., guarantee that everyone has a high level of education and healthcare no matter how lazy and irresponsible they are), and trying to reach it does more harm than good.
Fully agree. I'm just making a practical point about the limits.
As I get older (I AM OLD), I get more extreme in my views. I'm NOT the only one.
And I DON'T mean irascible (which I am, too).
The distinction between voluntary and involuntary socialism is noted far too rarely.
This applies to so many things: NPR funding, carbon footprints, USAID, etc. if you want money to go towards something, put your money towards that thing. Don’t take money from landscapers and carpenters abs restaurant owners to fund the things that YOU think are important.
If progressives (who tend to be fairly prosperous) put their money where their mouths were they wouldn’t even need taxes or legislation. I guess that would be less fun, though… and more expensive (for them).
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/towards-a-democratic-socialism
How about common ownership of land and natural resources but individual tenure on the basis of paying rent not taxes on labour or capital incomes?
Henry George, the Physiocrats and the mediaeval legal system point to a principled third way.