The Myth of Fairness and Equality

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogikAndReazon, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. LogikAndReazon
    Offline

    LogikAndReazon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,850
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,285
    Socialism always fails, at least by our standards. It stresses sameness and hence embraces, at best, inefficiency. Equality of income is a false standard, oft used. Take from those who have, give to those who don't. The problem is that there is not an equality of talent, intelligence ambition, attitude, skills, wisdom or insight. To hold back our best by denying them the rewards of those things that allow them to get ahead is to create an artificially sterile environment in which nothing can grow. Motivation is crushed, save for those questing for power within the sociopolitical framework.

    Socialists, in some breach of basic logic, think it's fair to give to those who have not by taking from those who earned at what is effectively gunpoint. How is that fair to those who have earned? Most who participate in our society either are earning now or have earned in the past and seek in retirement to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Explain to me how it is fair to give rewards to those who have not had the motivation to do for themselves.
    To be sure there is a small portion of the society that will legitimately depend on the rest of us. The autistic, the physically impaired, those with certain psychiatric disorders. We as a society do indeed have a moral obligation to take care of our own in such circumstances. But not necessarily through government. Religious organizations, charities, foundations for such things can be established and people would cheerfully give.

    Consider now the rest of society. As we are now there are many tiers of services and products. These run from high end, expensive goods to those which meet basic needs. Manufacturers, retailers, service personnel all exist catering to the specific clientele using those products. Reduce the society to a socialistic quagmire and this disappears. There is a need only for one or two types of cars. Only one type of canned veggies is really needed in your store. Only one type of home computer need be built. We can all wear the same utilitarian garb. Luxury industries like jewelry, boats, and high fashion disappear. Jobs are lost and factories close. Innovation dies. More people go on the dole. Education degenerates into serving a least common denominator. The children are dumbed down. A cycle forms that leads us degeneratively into a land of shadows. Shadows of what we could be, once were, of things gone.

    In a free society we always have opportunity available. Is it equal opportunity for all? Not yet and probably never fully will be. But it provides the greatest amount of opportunity and flexibility for the greatest number. It's certainly better than the alternative, which, in teaching to the low point and restraining excellence within an environment of societal stagnation, actually destroys opportunity.

    If you want a world where the most you can hope for is to eat, sleep, have sex and watch cable television, then socialism may be for you. If you think there is more to life then this lowest common denominator existence then you'll agree that socialism belongs on the discredited dung heap of unworkable philosophies.

    Ultimately, in it's rhetorical and false quest for some mythic fairness, socialism creates the unfairest society of all. The one that denies the individual the opportunity, used ir unused, to reach their fullest level of accomplishment and being.


    Why Socialism Fails: It's Hidden Lie and Where it Leads - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
     

Share This Page