I had a conversation with a friend the other day. She is from Colombia, but resides in a different central American country. She's smart, hard-working, and owns her own business.
Somehow the topic ended up on politics and health care, which led to a passionate discussion about the evils and merits of socialism.
We've had similar discussions before, and they are always equally animated. I know I'll never change her mind, and she knows she won't change mine, but we argue anyway. I think we enjoy the banter.
But this time I was able to actually get her to admit that she knows "it will never work" but that she wants it to. That there has to be a "middle", where everybody can be helped.
I of course don't agree. Most of the people on welfare in the US are completely capable of working, but they are fat and lazy and prefer to sit on the couch eating bonbons they bought with their food stamps, which productive people's tax $ paid for. Then when they get sick, the productive people once again are paying for their healthcare? Yeah, that's a good system.
Anyway, I found it really interesting that she would admit that logically, socialism isn't the best solution, because ok, fine, there will always be haves and have-nots, even if you spread all the $ in the world equally. We'd be right back where we are within 5 years.
5% of the world controls 95% of the money. Pareto's law works on some ratio, with everything. Especially where people are concerned.
And yet, on an emotional level, she doesn't want anyone to go hungry. Doesn't want children to grow up in poverty. Doesn't want families to struggle.
That's where proponents of socialistic ideas try and throw logic under the bus, saying that "capitalists are evil because they don't care if children starve to death, while they drive around their fancy cars."
Not true at all, of course. But it's not a matter of "caring" or not. It's a matter of what is RIGHT for the individual, and what is right is that the individual should have a choice.
It's a shame when kids grow up in poverty, but what's the reason? Is it because their parents don't work, won't work, can't work? Is it because their society is screwed up, and the de-facto governments are simply pillaging the people in the name of "the people" (see: Russia, Venezuela, um, the eventual USA?)? Is it because fate had them born in a poverty-stricken country (with "governments" who aren't exactly great models of democracy)?
Most people that I meet in Latin America, especially the women, are for socialism. They want everybody to have a good life, to be fed and safe. Understandable.
And yet, their countries are the most glaring examples of how the system breeds corruption. It's the "power of pull" (favors, bribery) that Rand talked about, it's survival of the fittest at the lowest human form, it's a few at the top using the masses…against the other masses. Every now and then the faces at the top change, but the basic ideals never do.
Even more, no matter how many promises a socialist leader makes, they can't fulfill them. Because those who THINK and produce will not do so at the point of a gun. And those who live their lives conquering by force or by corruption are generally not capable of actually using the mind to produce.
So, what happened to Venezuela? All the capable, intelligent people got the hell out of there and went to other countries. Now the nation is prime for self-destruction, because all that is left are the hungry, lied-to masses, and the "benevolent" lying leader(s).
My friend understands that. She realizes why the smart people would leave a system like that. She herself is a successful business owner who works very hard. I admire her for her work ethic and determination.
She also understands that giving something for nothing is bad for her business if that's the business model. She gets that things should be earned, that she has the right as an individual and THE business owner to decide how and where she should give of her time and resources.
And yet, despite that, she still is convinced that somehow "the government" has the best interests of the people at heart, and that "the government" should somehow be tasked with making sure there is a minimum standard of living for everybody, so that all are taken care of.
What I don't understand is, is it indoctrination? Is it just hearing the bs for so many years growing up that embeds that irrational hope in people, that "the government" is somehow a good entity that isn't, ahem, made up of (mostly crooked) individuals who are all out for their own best interests (or in the case of the really evil people, just to destroy those they hate by sucking them dry, the people who love life and freedom and production)?
Because there is no LOGICAL argument you can make for a socialistic system. Many emotional arguments, sure. Many "for the good of the people" arguments (they don't hold water, but you can make them). But they're all irrational and have proven themselves to be eventually destructive throughout history. It will never work.
And yet, somehow, those who have grown up in those systems and have been hurt the most by them, hold fast to the hope that somehow they can work in the future.
It's almost like a woman who stays in an abusive relationship…those happy times, those few moments where the guy is sweet to her, give her hope that he can change, and really, she needs him because she has her own co-dependency issues too.
She doesn't necessarily want to own up to her own issues, strengthen herself, be strong and independent, and step out on her own. It's the victim mentality. If your friend was that woman, you'd tell her to get out of the relationship.
Yet when that woman is a nation, and the abusive boyfriend is the "government", you side with the abuser? How is that logical.
In the case of socialism, those happy times, those few moments, are the promises ("Yes we can!"), the euphoric highs of hopefulness (he's not George Bush!), maybe even a free chicken in every pot. Who doesn't like free chicken?
And yet, that chicken doesn't taste as good, deep down in a person's soul, because it is unearned. It was given, not as a reward for their work, but simply because they exist…and because they aren't the horrible evil rich people from whom the chicken was taken so that they, the poor, miserable wretches, could eat it.
How can you be happy with yourself if you truly look at that for what it is?
Do you want to be "taken care of" by a government (read: people who are rich, powerful, narcissistic and have NONE of the problems you do) that steals from people who are hardworking to give to the miserable wretches who are too pathetic to earn their food, their housing, their healthcare?
Doesn't that say something about YOU, if you're on the receiving end of that?
Happiness comes through using your mind, your abilities, and working hard with them to produce something of value. The personal reward is your own, in that you created something good. The monetary reward is when the market (read: other people who value productions and are willing to pay
for them) buys that something good.
Despite my friend and other women I have met understanding that concept enough to live it themselves, they want other people to somehow be taken care of, by someone (namely, government, meaning: by the money extracted from the people who have worked to earn it, BY the government, under threat of punishment if they do not give it up "for the good of the people").
I'm not sure if the strange contradiction is just cultural, or if it's an emotional thing that all Feelers deal with.
I am sure it's not a good contradiction to live with in one's head though.