Socialism

	A large part of Mises’ argument, in particular, was a discussion on the nature of socialism; specifically, that it is fractured into a hundred little subgroups that could each claim, upon any criticism, that you did not truly understand socialism and that your criticisms were unfounded or misplaced altogether. In fact, socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond “public ownership of the means of production,” what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics, and science–no, it relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the idea of what is “fair” rather than what works. And whenever it is pinned down and shown to not work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.
	What does it mean for the public to own the means of production, exactly? Socialists have no definite answer to this question. Mises devotes dozens of pages to exploring all the possible meanings of that statement and explaining why the “public ownership of the means of production” is an absurd principle. But there’s the rub–how easy it is to escape argument when your own position is smoke and mirrors! But if you believe that socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, then I’m here to tell you that they all understood socialism very, very well. And furthermore, they understood that their own criticisms would be discarded by socialists that would do exactly what you just did–claim that none of them really understood.
	I weep for socialists, who cannot see the forest for the trees.

~:~

	Those who talk glibly about redistribution, such as Russel Brand, often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design, But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended. The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only one. In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in WWI. How can that be?
	It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth–and future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity. People in industry are not inert objects, either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country. Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.
	If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out successfully in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants, but a democracy–or a republic–must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall and act accordingly. Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills, and productive experience that economists call “human capital.” When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.
	Fidel Castro’s confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital. We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.
	If the redistributionists were serious, they would want to distribute the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others. That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power and to get the votes of people who are dependent solely upon them. Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of “Forward,” but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world. Yet to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution still sounds good.

~:~

	The solution to the welfare state is privatized social welfare. Social welfare is a job for charities and the churches. Western nations are the most charitable, giving more to charity in money, kind, and time than any race on the planet. Just get rid of income and sales taxes and let people keep their earnings. They will build a private social welfare network. And any who can’t get help from their family, churches, and charities are probably scum who deserve to be culled by their circumstances. Taxes should be limited to property (if at all), capital gains, vices, and tariffs on foreign manufactured goods. Government spending should largely be focused on defense and national infrastructure.