[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:41:51 -0400
Angelo Bertolli wrote:

> I think the 
> colloquial idea and discussion of socialism always implies there is 
> capitalism.

Well, I have to say that's a unique, in my experience, definition of
socialism.

> Humans do have some shared resources and we do all affect
> each other in some areas.  To not acknowledge this in your political
> philosophy is to have an unrealistic political philosophy.

Not at all. Respect for property rights handles how we affect one another
quite well. Socialism, by contrast, has no respect whatsoever for
property rights. Sharing is fine when it's voluntary. But when it's seen
as an entitlement, then you have things such as the classic "free rider"
problem. Again, I refer to Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", which
explains the role of price in allocating scarce resources. The capitalist
economy allocates resources more efficiently, and thus has less waste.
It's actually more beneficial to all, because production is more
efficient, thus there's more stuff -- food, water, etc. -- to go around,
than some idealistic notion of "shared" stuff. If there's no profit to
the producers, what incentive do they have to invest in better machinery,
fertilizer, etc.? Again, I point to the Soviet Union, where people
starved to death because of the myth of resources being owned by everyone.

jed