Capitalism vs. Socialism: Online Radio Show comments
I just heard an in-law's online radio show that dealt with the primary topic of capitalism vs. socialism and I noticed that some of the issues never really got explained clearly, or at least, the reactions didn't seem to come out as succinctly as I was hoping.
One of the questions was about how socialism was creeping into the political mindset, and even that of the public. The initial and most prominent response was the concept of personal responsibility, or the lack thereof. Though this is a part of it, my first reaction was more along the lines of "a sense of entitlement in the populous" where people can gain the right to something simply by making the claim that it is a right. Something as simple as "the right to health care" and "the right to employment" are both nothing more than a desire to gain those privileges without applying the effort that would normally go into gaining them. The same can be said for housing, transportation, and even child care. The people who can afford these things, will likely pay for them if they feel they need them, however, there are many who want them just because they don't have them, or don't have them the way they want them. Sure, there are people out there who have a genuine need for them and simply can't afford them, but in my experience, those instances are far more rare than many information outlets and politicians would have us believe. Keep in mind that a "need" is not the same thing as "the government's responsibility to provide at taxpayer expense." If only an extremely small percentage of the population has one or more of these "needs," should it become the responsibility of the rest of the populous to pay for it in a round-about way? What about if a small, but still significant, percentage has them? Who would pay for it if it became a simple majority? A vast majority?
For example, I used to work for a college, and the majority of the students I came in contact with (as well as several members of the staff and faculty) had a tendency to allow others to do their work for them whenever possible, the grading systems were very lax, and the material was extremely simple for the level of education than what should have been expected. Working in this environment allowed me to take a few of the classes at no cost (save for the course books), but the classes were so watered down that I could get away with attending only every third class (I worked in the IT department and was expected to deal with problems before attending classes) and still pass each class with an "A". And through all of that, there were still students who were in danger of failing those same classes. Most of those students had come to expect the instructors to be lenient, and the coursework to be easy. They received credit for intending to do the work, and forgetting to study. If they were in dire straits, they would got to the Learning Center to get "help" with whatever they were having problems with and, more often than not, come away with getting the Learning Specialist to do their schoolwork for them. I worked there up until about four years ago when they laid me off (the couldn't keep track of all of the things I was responsible for, so they out-sourced my entire part of the department), and I'm willing to bet that the situation hasn't improved in the slightest.
A bit more recently, I attended a university where the department heads for my major (Computer Science) actually told a few of the more dedicated students that the C.S. program was more intended to give the student a "Computer Science Experience" rather than any real ability to work within in the C.S. field after graduation. This is for a Bachelor's level degree, which seems to be the absolute minimum requirement to find work in the programming field these days.
A sense of entitlement? Yeah, it's being heavily promoted. Anyone who speaks against it, well.... they must be an intolerant, bigoted, hateful person to dare tell anyone they aren't entitled to the luxuries in life... the very things that our parents and their parents struggled to provide in the hopes that our children could benefit from the commitment to earning what we have; to earning a living; to earning happiness. Now, we're being taught to expect happiness; to have it hand-delivered on a silver platter with the promise that if anything detracts from it, the people who screwed it up will be held accountable and severely punished for it.
So, back to the main topic, and the question was raised something along the lines of "If a better system could be found, wouldn't it be preferable to use it, instead of what is already in place?", and seemed to be slightly side-stepped with a simple disagreement based on the cost of putting what is currently in place, in place.
My take on it is more along the lines of, "it should be proven to be better before making the claim that it is, in fact better." Different people base their opinions off of different points for any given viewpoint. For example, when looking at a new hard drive for a computer, is faster always better? What about higher storage capacity? Or, how about a smaller footprint? Is the interface important? What about the brand? Should it be internal or external? And, perhaps the most important, how will it be used? All of those questions should have an answer, even if some or most of them are "it doesn't matter," just as with when social, political, and governmental systems are concerned. The questions that should be asked with respect to those systems should be "What pieces work?", "What pieces don't?", "Which pieces are already a part of what's in place?", and "What will happen when a piece changes?" Also to be asked should be "What happened when that last piece was incorporated into the existing system?" because it's a given that one part can and often will have an effect on the entire system in either a positive, negative, or an indeterminant way.
One of the questions was about how socialism was creeping into the political mindset, and even that of the public. The initial and most prominent response was the concept of personal responsibility, or the lack thereof. Though this is a part of it, my first reaction was more along the lines of "a sense of entitlement in the populous" where people can gain the right to something simply by making the claim that it is a right. Something as simple as "the right to health care" and "the right to employment" are both nothing more than a desire to gain those privileges without applying the effort that would normally go into gaining them. The same can be said for housing, transportation, and even child care. The people who can afford these things, will likely pay for them if they feel they need them, however, there are many who want them just because they don't have them, or don't have them the way they want them. Sure, there are people out there who have a genuine need for them and simply can't afford them, but in my experience, those instances are far more rare than many information outlets and politicians would have us believe. Keep in mind that a "need" is not the same thing as "the government's responsibility to provide at taxpayer expense." If only an extremely small percentage of the population has one or more of these "needs," should it become the responsibility of the rest of the populous to pay for it in a round-about way? What about if a small, but still significant, percentage has them? Who would pay for it if it became a simple majority? A vast majority?
For example, I used to work for a college, and the majority of the students I came in contact with (as well as several members of the staff and faculty) had a tendency to allow others to do their work for them whenever possible, the grading systems were very lax, and the material was extremely simple for the level of education than what should have been expected. Working in this environment allowed me to take a few of the classes at no cost (save for the course books), but the classes were so watered down that I could get away with attending only every third class (I worked in the IT department and was expected to deal with problems before attending classes) and still pass each class with an "A". And through all of that, there were still students who were in danger of failing those same classes. Most of those students had come to expect the instructors to be lenient, and the coursework to be easy. They received credit for intending to do the work, and forgetting to study. If they were in dire straits, they would got to the Learning Center to get "help" with whatever they were having problems with and, more often than not, come away with getting the Learning Specialist to do their schoolwork for them. I worked there up until about four years ago when they laid me off (the couldn't keep track of all of the things I was responsible for, so they out-sourced my entire part of the department), and I'm willing to bet that the situation hasn't improved in the slightest.
A bit more recently, I attended a university where the department heads for my major (Computer Science) actually told a few of the more dedicated students that the C.S. program was more intended to give the student a "Computer Science Experience" rather than any real ability to work within in the C.S. field after graduation. This is for a Bachelor's level degree, which seems to be the absolute minimum requirement to find work in the programming field these days.
A sense of entitlement? Yeah, it's being heavily promoted. Anyone who speaks against it, well.... they must be an intolerant, bigoted, hateful person to dare tell anyone they aren't entitled to the luxuries in life... the very things that our parents and their parents struggled to provide in the hopes that our children could benefit from the commitment to earning what we have; to earning a living; to earning happiness. Now, we're being taught to expect happiness; to have it hand-delivered on a silver platter with the promise that if anything detracts from it, the people who screwed it up will be held accountable and severely punished for it.
So, back to the main topic, and the question was raised something along the lines of "If a better system could be found, wouldn't it be preferable to use it, instead of what is already in place?", and seemed to be slightly side-stepped with a simple disagreement based on the cost of putting what is currently in place, in place.
My take on it is more along the lines of, "it should be proven to be better before making the claim that it is, in fact better." Different people base their opinions off of different points for any given viewpoint. For example, when looking at a new hard drive for a computer, is faster always better? What about higher storage capacity? Or, how about a smaller footprint? Is the interface important? What about the brand? Should it be internal or external? And, perhaps the most important, how will it be used? All of those questions should have an answer, even if some or most of them are "it doesn't matter," just as with when social, political, and governmental systems are concerned. The questions that should be asked with respect to those systems should be "What pieces work?", "What pieces don't?", "Which pieces are already a part of what's in place?", and "What will happen when a piece changes?" Also to be asked should be "What happened when that last piece was incorporated into the existing system?" because it's a given that one part can and often will have an effect on the entire system in either a positive, negative, or an indeterminant way.