After all of the talk in my previous two posts about the growing trend of socialism in this country I have come up with an idea to please all parties involved, Optional Socialism. The concept is simple, every five years you are given a choice, I want to live in a socialist society or I want to live in a free market society. For those who choose to live in the free market society things are the same as they are now except with less taxes, you buy what you need and if there is money left over you can buy what you want. For those who chose the socialist society route you would be pooled with all of the other Americans who choose to do it and all of your yearly income would go to a branch of the government set up to regulate this group of people.
The income of the people in the socialist group would go strait from their employer to the government who would deduct the standard taxes that were charged to the people in the free market group and then forward the rest to the regulation branch who would then divide the total amount of money by the total number of people in the program evenly. Every one in the program would then get the exact same goods in the exact same quantity every month. The same food, the same medical care, the same housing, the same clothes, ect. The total amount of goods disbursed would be based on the total amount coming into this program not on what people wanted.
Again people would be able to freely move between the programs every five years if they wanted to. My personal belief is that over time these people would begin to want the things that they were no longer getting. Every one would want something different because as humans our needs are different, which is why socialism cannot work effectively. Different needs and wants lead to trading of goods, trading of goods leads to the development of currency, and the development of currency leads to a free market economy. Maybe after all of the fools in this country who join the socialist program spend five years in a poverty stricken socialist hell they will finally pull their heads out of their collective asses and stop trying to turn the U.S.A. into the U.S.S.R. with all these damn socialist bills.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Although they are interesting, your ideas about 2 systems co-existing have a few flaws. First, at least in small towns like the one I grew up in, just hearing the world Socialism would make many people uncomfortable. Not just because of the effects of such a system, but because of the remaining social fear of communism that was instilled into the general public back in the days of the Cold War.
Also, only the poor would pick the Socialism route. Why would those who got highly educated and successful willingly share their wealth with those who didn't? Donating money to those who can't is one thing, but sharing it with those who just won't isn't something most would do voluntarily. Add these two facts together, and you won't have many, if any, people picking Socialism every 5 years.
Plus, the whole idea of forced sharing isn't always a bad thing. In many cases, I believe programs like Welfare are abused by people who chose not to work hard at becoming successful. However, there are others who are held back by circumstances they can't control, such as a disability or the unexpected death of a family's major income source. It is for scenarios like these that programs such as Welfare should be kept around.
Because of the reasons listed above, I believe we should refrain from such an extreme action as 2 systems of government in the same country, hell that is just asking for a 2nd Civil War. Instead, why not just call for reform in our current systems. Instead of handing out free fish to those who choose to be lazy and not get educated, just give them out to those who can't become successful. A system that doesn't work perfectly shouldn't be scrapped for a new one that might not work at all. Instead, perhaps some tweaking would be a better idea.
Well, yeah, that form of socialism would die, because it's far too extreme. But what's so great about your free market scheme? Look at what you say "...you buy what you need and if there is money left over you can buy what you want." What if you can't get enough money to buy what you need? What if you can't get a good job or your house gets destroyed by a fire? Sucks to be you then, doesn't it.
Socialism is, to me at least, not about everyone having the same the same as everyone else, but rather, making sure everyone has what they need.
What I propose is that the government will provide all necessities of life: education, fire departments, police, health care, food (not steaks or anything fancy, just enough to keep you nourished), housing (again, nothing fancy, just a roof over your head so you don't die of frostbite in your sleep) and a job in case no one else will hire you. But everything that isn't a necessity (a TV, a phone, a computer, etc.) would be in the domain of a free market without any regulations (except, perhaps, pertaining to the environment and safety).
That way, everyone gets what they need, and if you want more, you still have to work for it.
Let's have a quick history recap. Socialism in Europe back in the day = World Wars, starving people, and many deaths. Socialism in Russia = Cold War, starving people, many deaths, and crazy dictator. Socialism in Canada = a stupid country that no one really likes nor trusts. So is Socialism in the US a good idea? Probably not. Socialism is a great idea as a theory when the motives continue to help people. Here's the bad part, when the government takes that kind of power, it usually gets greedy and people end up starving because they aren't given enough food or anything. Also, without the willingness to work for a better life and the American Dream, what's the point of doing your job well? What's the point of living in America where you're supposed to make your own way and get what you want?
The idea of creating this dual system is to shock people, it is supposed to create the flash in people's faces that says "Hey, look at where we are slowly heading". Hopefully the shock to people's systems will bring them to realize that the United States is not as much about making your own way as they thought it was. As far as haakaa's idea of giving people what they need i disagree, why just give it to them? If you have every thing you need why go out and work? Some people do not feel drawn to a life of luxury and simply allowing them to exist by letting them ride on the backs of other hard working people is not fair. My point is simple, you get what you work for, no more, no less, if you can't get a job here go somewhere else and find one, and if you want something, earn it.
Post a Comment