To simplify as much as possible--the real answer would fill pages--it is the philosophy that the state can dispose of the lives and/or property of its citizens for what it considers any better purpose than what the citizens might have used them for.
This requires several basic philosophical assumptions:
- That people do not own what they earn. Especially if they earn a lot.
- That the needs of some outweigh the individual and property rights of others.
- That the state is a better judge of the disposal of the wealth of its citizens than the citizens are.
This is dressed up in a lot of foggy ideas like "social responsiblity," "mixed economies," "economic democracy," "fairness" and others.
The key point is to look past the homilies to find the gun.
In the long run, as far as economics and individual rights are concerned, it doesn't make much difference if a tyrannical dictatorship does this, or if a democracy uses the vote to suck money out of the pockets of fellow citizens and into their own. In fact, the latter can be more insidious since it seems so gradual and harmless.
But in practice, the amount of control required to run an economy at the centralized level often decays eventually into state control of other behaviors.
Off Topic » in reply to re: What is socialism anyway?
re: What is socialism anyway?
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Aren't you Americans glad you don't have to live with socialized medicine?
- Favorite single-payer quote
- Market forces
- State of health "care" in shambles
- And those are the lucky ones - many just don't get the care to have bills. (n/t)
- I have lived under socialized medicine...
- I had a car once
- I was underwhelmed by Australian socialized medicine
- Yugos were. There was a reason for that. (n/t)
- Oh right - I forgot - anything connected with socialism is automatically bad
- I had a car once
- re: Yeah.