A society is either socialist or it isn't.

Poppycock. In the U.S., there are many elements of socialism. Free education, police, firefighters, public roads, non-private prisons, anything that exists for the public good (ostensibly) that is paid for by tax dollars is socialism. Socialism, to some degree, probably exists in every country in the world. That does not make every nation in the world socialist.

I'd argue otherwise, Patrick.

Having publicly-funded police and fire departments is not socialism. Even capitalist communities can come together for mutual aid and benefit.

A government, once established, has as its first and foremost duty to protect the lives, rights, and property of its citizens. Some threats cannot be handled by individuals alone or by protection available only to those with the means to pay for it - e.g., fires can spread from unprotected property to protected property, so protecting all property makes sense.

Fighting these threats requires a unified public effort. If each person is funding private protection efforts of his or her property, then the law is what the owners say it is on their property. Do we really want people getting shot for getting lost in the woods and straying on to someone else's property because that's the punishment that property owner has declared for trespassing?

The police and justice system are, from a societal viewpoint, neutral organized force protecting property rights for all. And should remain so. Likewise the military. Having a force protecting property rights is not socialist - unless you think capitalism advocates society as a Wild West free-for-all.

Hint, it does not. Capitalism accepts, even advocates, mutually beneficial efforts to protect property and property rights - having a police force to tell the mob it cannot storm the castle to grab whatever it can carry back to its own houses, until a mob of angry poorer people storms those houses.

Police force is applied, at least in theory, equally among the rich and poor. Under socialism, police force would favor the less-privilieged, inducing arresting the privileged simply for being privileged (e.g., the kulaks in the former Soviet Union).

Nor are public roads socialism. They're common sense. If we left everyone to build his or her own road, we'd have no space left not taken up by a private toll road promising cheaper passage than the next road over. A public road is an effort to provide all citizens the means to travel and move goods and services (and defense forces in time of war) efficiently. They enable all citizens to exercise their property rights.

Some public institutions should be privatized - libraries, hospitals, schools, parks, etc. - as their operation would be much more effective if run by private enterprises. Although one could argue for parks remaining public as once the land value soared, its highest and best use may be for condos, not parks, and a smart capitalist would then sell it to a developer, depriving the citizenry of access to open space.

Every mutual or communal effort is not socialism, despite the socialists efforts to make them out to be. This effort to portray all public institutions as socialism is disingenuous.

Socialism is the top-down ownership of economic resources and forcible redistribution of wealth, not the voluntary pooling of resources for mutual protection and benefit.

Socialism does not pay for mutually-beneficial public endeavors with publicly-approved taxes (by proxy if legislatively-approved), but with assets seized by force; assets the government argues, are owned by the state and available for whatever use to which the state wants to put them.

Conan:

A government, once established, has as its first and foremost duty to protect the lives, rights, and property of its citizens.

Nice idea, but who says? There have been and are governments that can, have, and will continue to ride roughshod over the supposed "lives, rights and property of it citizens." You think Kim Jong Un thinks that's his duty? He'd laugh himself silly at the very suggestion.

Conan:

Capitalism accepts, even advocates, mutually beneficial efforts to protect property and property rights...

Capitalists might do so, but there is nothing in the political philosophy of capitalism that calls for this. You are confusing capitalism with socialist institutions that capitalists consent to.

A transfer that benefits me is vital to the future of our great nation. Transfers that don't are disgraceful boondoggles. So much for how to evaluate the value of transfers.

And I guess there are other kinds of transfers that aren't mentioned above and are a little more subtle. For example: The military base that has no real reason be be where it is, and only remains open because a couple senators and a governor complained, really, really loudly, when DoD suggested shutting it down.

And we're gonna see another one out here in the next few years as the owner of the Washington Redskins looks for a place to put his new stadium (and don't even get me started on that).

Well, Patrick, Adam Smith, who did as much as anyone to delineate the principals of capitalism, acknowledged that government regulation is a necessary evil to protect property and property rights.

"In the U.S., there are many elements of socialism. Free education, police, firefighters, public roads, non-private prisons, anything that exists for the public good (ostensibly) that is paid for by tax dollars is socialism. "

That's essentially an argument that says "all government is socialist". Socialists love this argument. However, as they define the terms, it's a tautology, so it's meaningless; it's like saying "2 equals 2". Prior to the 20th century, basic government services were never thought of as socialism.

"

Capitalism accepts, even advocates, mutually beneficial efforts to protect property and property rights...

Actually, a government-type entity that guarantees property rights and the sanctity of contract are essential elements of capitalism. If property can be taken and contracts broken at will, capitalism can't exist.

Getting back to the main article... I remember back in the 1970s the term "Euro-socialism" being used for what that article discussed. Technically, it wasn't socialism since the means of production (usually) remained in private hands. However, between high taxes, business-limiting regulation, and wealth redistribution, the government controlled such a large percentage of the economy that who owned the means of production didn't matter much.

What you usually found in such economies was that, for a given type of product or service, there was a "flag corporation" with little or no competition, and market pricing regulated by the government. What you also found was product shortages, inefficient production, and widespread consumer dissatisfaction -- which they tried to address with more regulation, which led to more dissatisfaction, etc.

Will someone send Davies and Harrigan a copy of the constitution.

"Among the four presidents under whom transfers were greatest, two were Democrats (Obama and Clinton) and two Republicans (G.W. Bush and Trump)."

Presidents don't set the budget. They flat don't. Congress does. Redo the analysis using variables that actually have an impact on the outcome. Because this analysis is as effective as noting the number of dogs who get spayed doesn't have much of an impact on federal budget growth.

Presidents don't set the budget. They flat don't. Congress does. Redo the analysis using variables that actually have an impact on the outcome. Because this analysis is as effective as noting the number of dogs who get spayed doesn't have much of an impact on federal budget growth.

Ben at December 11, 2019 7:34 AM

A big part of being a savvy voter is knowing what parts of the government do what, and what part of the executive, legislative and judicial branches control certain administrative agencies. Your vote for your congressman and senators, as far as domestic issues and spending are concerned, is far more important than who the President is.

A shame they don’t teach any of this anymore in school. And it is probably deliberate. The entire function of government seems to be to obscure and shift accountability to agencies that are not responsive to, or controlled by the voters.

You shouldn’t be able to get a college degree in any subject ( in my opinion) without passing a fairly sophisticated test on the subject.

If you run the numbers you find that Democrat presidents tend to have slightly lower budget growth than Republican ones. But the correlation is pretty low. Run the same analysis with who controls congress and you get a very clear correlation. Democrat congresses result in large increases in spending. Republican congresses result in small increases. And the difference is very obvious.

The effect is the same on transfer payments. Democrat congresses lead to large increases in transfer payments. Trying to tie this to presidential parties is intentionally misleading.

> acknowledged that government
> regulation

A less famous but much younger thinker, Virginia Postrel, was the one who convinced me.

Transferism IS government ownership of the means of production. It reduces owners of means of production to managers/custodians working for the government that really owns those means. Ownership of a productive resource includes freedom to direct its output as one wishes, and transferism eliminates that essential component of ownership.

Take, for instance, a cow. If the government takes the milk and transfers it to a favored group of people, who really owns the cow?
The farmer is like a hired hand, who must feed and care for the cow, but who is not entitled to the milk. He's only entitled to the compensation the government chooses to let him keep, just as the hired and is only entitled to the compensation the farmer chooses to let him keep.

Furthermore, in a service economy, the means of production is one's own self. If the government gets to determine the disposition of the product of one's labor via transfers, then one is a slave.

"Socialism is the top-down ownership of economic resources and forcible redistribution of wealth, not the voluntary pooling of resources for mutual protection and benefit."

Since when is it voluntary? Since when is the portion of my taxes that covers something I do not support optional? Government is, by definition, force. Progressives are fond of saying that government is just things we do together. Well, corporations are just things we do together voluntarily.

"Socialism does not pay for mutually-beneficial public endeavors with publicly-approved taxes (by proxy if legislatively-approved), but with assets seized by force;"

The entire welfare state was publicly approved by legislative proxy, and if you think the assets funding it are not seized by force, stop paying your taxes and see what happens. Conan, you usually don't miss obvious things like this.

Conan, you usually don't miss obvious things like this. ~ bw1 at December 12, 2019 5:03 PM

bw, I was starting from the assumption that government, in and of itself, is not a bad thing; and that a democratic one (even in the form of a republic) remains the best option.

That governments become corrupted over the long run is not something new - even Jefferson spoke of the need to abolish and remake governments over time.

I have no faith that the people in American government today, at any level and of any party, would be capable of creating a fair and effective constitution for a functioning government. Just look at the hash California has made of its constitution - longer than the owner's manual of a Toyota Corolla and more convoluted than IKEA instructions.

"Furthermore, in a service economy, the means of production is one's own self. If the government gets to determine the disposition of the product of one's labor via transfers, then one is a slave."

Which is what happens to medical personnel in socialized medicine.

CD, it’s also what happens to them when when healthcare is a right and not a service.

You think Kim Jong Un thinks that's his duty? He'd laugh himself silly at the very suggestion. ~ Patrick at December 11, 2019 5:07 AM

Do we really want to base our definition of government on what a tyrant thinks?

Conan: That's what 90% of politicians think - but don't dare express. That's how government keeps growing whether we vote for "small government" or big government politicians - most of the ones that claim to be for small government change their actual policy (and lie about it) once they realize how bigger government personally benefits everyone in power.

markm, any bureaucracy will grow if left to its own devices. One part of Parkinson's Law states that a bureaucracy will grow at an annual rate of about 5.25% regardless of the amount of work done, or even whether any work is done at all.

As it grows, that bureaucracy will become more and more inefficient - necessitating the hiring of more people to get the same amount of work done.

In private industry, this trend is kept somewhat in check by the budgeting process and the need to sell a product in order to raise the money to pay employees. In government, without that constraint, bureaucracy grows unchecked.

"Which is what happens to medical personnel in socialized medicine."

Which is why the only place socialized medicine has come close to working is totalitarian regimes like the USSR.

"Comrade, your child shows aptitude for medicine/gynastics/engineering. She will pursue this, and she will like it, or you will suffer."

It results in shortages anywhere people can choose their own vocations.