ARS on Twitter
RSS
Resetting the discussion on alleged Alaskan socialism
Posted by civil truth on October 26th, 2008
Folks, the referee blew the whistle a long time ago after the ball went out of touch. I’m taking the ball and restarting with a drop ball.
Raven previously provided some dictionary definitions of socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Or in brief, socialism involves the government being the dominant or exclusive owner (and operator) of capital and business operations versus private investors utilizing private capital.
————————————————————
One other stipulation: taxes are a necessary but not sufficient condition of socialism. That is, collecting taxes ipso factodoes not equate with capitalism; it’s how the government utilizes these taxes that determines whether we’re dealing with a socialist approach.
In particular, if government expends its taxes by acting as a purchaser of goods and services from private vendors this is not socialism. Same if it invests these taxes in private markets under the same rules as all other investors without demanding (or extorting) a privileged level of control.
On the other hand, if government expends it taxes by becoming the direct provide of said services, either by eliminating existing private companies (by purchase or onerous regulation or outright expropriation) or establishing de novo businesses to compete with existing companies (especially if it tilts the playing field), that is socialism
This is why the recent bailouts in Washington teeter on the edge of socialism, especially as the government increasing directly gives money to companies and demands privileged control of the companies’ operations.
————————————————————
Regarding redistribution of wealth, with respect to the above definitions of socialism, this seems again to be more of a necessary condition rather than a sufficient condition of socialism.
That is, income redistribution ipso facto is not socialism. One needs to look at the larger framework of that redistribution, as to whether this is part of a program to put government in control of providing services.
For instance, redistributing taxes revenues to create government-operated schools or health care veers towards socialism. Redistributing taxes to provide vouchers for private services is not socialism. Yet both involve redistribution of taxes.
Thus, everybody needs to not be trigger-happy to label redistribution of wealth as socialism.
————————————————————
Finally, looking at the Alaska Permanent Fund, the principal is obtained by taxes on energy production companies. Again, taxes in themselves are not equal to socialism, as stipulated earlier. So far okay.
These proceeds are invested into private markets. And to my knowledge, the state follows the same rules as other investors. If so, the state is not owning or controlling the business activity of the companies it invests in – and we’re still okay.
The interest (in part or in whole) is distributed to Alaska residents. True, this does constitute redistribution, especially with respect to the source of the trust principal. But, looking at the impact of this redistribution, the recipients of these funds are free to expend these monies as they see fit; thus there is no resultant expansion in government control over private business operations nor expansion of direct government operation of business. I still don’t see socialism.
————————————————————
Not every perceived deviation from a “pure” free-market system constitutes socialism. To automatically call every such deviation “socialism” is name-calling invective that disrupts honest discussion and obscures distinctions.
We all need to be more careful with labeling. Here and in other discussions.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Waiting with baited breath with Meaty’s reply to this. As always, CT seems to create such a clear, clean and articulate argument.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Excellent post CT. And yes, we wait with frothy foamy breath for Meaty to come over and reply. :roll:
I’d like to add some more thought to this conversation. For me, socialism is a form of life that takes away the natural human spirit: it kills the imagination, the desire to better oneself with further education and skills learning; it wipes out incentives to be innovative and industrious. Much of this has to do with income: We like to think we earn a salary that is well deserved and based upon our education and skills. We earn what we’re worth in terms of skill sets and degrees.
All my life I have always associated socialism with INCOME redistribution, not wealth sharing. Under socialism, everyone gets the same: Income, benefits, housing, medical, and so on. To me, this means some will always work harder just because it’s their nature to do so, while others will not put forth any effort; and they both get the SAME praise and reward. The village becomes the WAY of life; IT rules life. Hillary Clinton stood more for real socialism than Obama does.
The real socialist people do not like Obama. At all.
Here’s a sample of what the Socialist Party of USA’s Statement of Principles:
There is little government involvement in this statement. I think this would go against the grains of all politicians, including the Anointed One. To them, someone has to be control.
Now this is more in line with what our Democratic and liberal friends believe. The error in this stance is simple: No one is forced to sell anything. Everyone has free choices to make. Some of this means making sacrifices and giving up a lot of time and money (for an education, for example). All of this means living within ones’ means and being content with that.
More reasons why Obama and his his lot are not well liked by the real socialists:
Interesting stuff.
Another online Socialist web site, SocialistWorker.org- offers this up to the ante:
The article goes on to summarize why Obama isn’t qualified to be called a Socialist. He is bashed for going to far to the right, or center.
Different people have different views of what socialism really is. Or is not.
One thing, socialism under any definition, IS not something I want to see in the US. To people like Meaty, who perhaps doesn’t truly understand what he speaks of, socialism isn’t a bad thing. Sharing the wealth sounds good. It smells sweet. But socialism is not all about this. Its far more dangerous and it kills societies.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I am finishing up Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged .
It was a long, but worthwhile, read.
And I view socialism, or its scientific cousin, communism, increasinly through her eyes as well. It steals property, intellectual, physical, or monetary, and gives it to those who have not earned it.
It stifles freedom, liberty, and creativity, in the sickly sweet name of “equality”. Ofcourse, by “equality”, it is meant “equality of results”, not the equality of opportunity.
I did find her quite cold though, concerning religion and charitable giving. She had an utmost disdain for religion, though I could see why given her fierce independence and adherence to “reason” over “faith”. I personally have no problem with religion, when religion is embraced freely, not forced, upon people. The same thing with charitable giving. There is nothing virtuous by having the government come in and take your money, and then giving it away for you. I believe that supporting charities of your own free will, now that is virtuous. Because it is made through a choice.
Something socialism and communism take away is choice. You can’t have choice in a society that has embraced such philosophies. Then you might break from what is good for the collective.
And perhaps Barack Obama is not a true socialist. Perhaps he is just your typical politician that has chosen a particular schtick to gain office, in this case he’s “taking money from Peter to pay Paul, so that he can guarantee the support of Paul.”
October 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Barry is a Marxist! Hi Bigfoot!
October 27th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I agree Duncan, about Rands tendency towards a very cold heart. It bothers me a lot considering what I do for a living. Disabled kids need help to live; much of what families receive, and places like my work depend upon donations. My work is a charity.
There are some who say Rand was against allowing disabled people a chance to live; that it’s a survivalist world and only the strong should prevail. That, to me, is just wrong and incorrect. I respect all life. And will do what I can to maintain it. I consider it my moral duty. And her philosophy of objectivism says abortion is a right, and it’s okay. I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
But her other stuff is right on. A true libertarian she was, of not of the extreme variety. A lot of people would benefit from reading her book.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Obama is leading this country down a path that is worse than socialism. He’s taking us to communism- which is socialism with an elite class. That is much worse. He’s stupid in that he doesn’t recognize this in himself either.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Trying to choose between socialism/Communism and objectivism is like Harvey Mudd’s choice of punishments:
“The guilty party has his choice; death by electrocution, death by gas, death by phaser, death by hanging–”
Ironically, both socialism and objectivism begin with the same flawed view of human nature: that humans and human society are perfectible if you just create the correct environment.
What they diametrically differ on are the political means to that end.
In brief, socialists define an utilitarian calculus of the “good of the whole” and subsume to that the value of life and of the individual, leading them (with good intentions initially) to employ the coercive power of the State (or of groups) to impose their utopia. Of course, this rapidly turns into tyranny and eventually mass murder as those individuals who resist must be terminated for the socialists’ “good of the whole”.
Objectivists, on the other hand, exalt the individual as a god accountable only to itself, and against all history posit that if you remove all external constraint, that somehow a univeral system of rational self-interest will magically emerge from the thoughts and beliefs of these billions of individuals (rooted in myriad cultures and economic status and eduation and relationships) that all will agree to and abide by. This ignores the impact of all the emotions and intangibles that make us fully human, that don’t obey the laws of rational self-interest.
Both run aground on the rocks of the fundamental truth of human depravity, recognition of which ironically offers the best starting point for actually creating a better human society in practice than either of the above two philosophies can offer. I’m referring to the reality of the Christian God and the guidance of Scripture, recognizing the highly flawed history that these in practice has wrought when applied to the political realm.
On the other hand, recognition of depravity innoculates us against secular utopias and the temptation to utilize coercive state actions out of a healthy respect for “first do no harm” and recognition of the corrupting influence of power and the dehumanizing propensities of bureaucracy.
To that end, I find that limited government, based upon the rule of law and private property rights, offers the most just framework for imperfect humans to govern themselves.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Is the public education system in America ’socialist’?
Government owns and operates schools.
Should this be abolished?
I am seriously asking…
October 30th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Actually, the public school system, or free school for all, is a plank in the Communist Manifesto. Should it be abolished? Not necessarily, but I believe a voucher system, or “the money follows my kids, not my kids follow the money”, would make the publik skool sistyms have to compete with private schools that generally do better. Everybody needs an education, it is just that not everyone is getting one at public schools. Too busy teaching them self-esteem classes and the such, as well as being unable to have any discipline in public schools. Kids run rampant and don’t care, regardless of whether your have the best teacher in the world or the biggest retard at the head of the class. My two cents.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
1) Is the money that is used to create to Alaska Permanent Fund taken from companies that develop Alaska’s mineral resources?
2) Do the recipients of the money disbursed from the Alaska Permanent Fund include individuals who have done nothing to earn the money used to create the Alaska Permanent Fund?
October 31st, 2008 at 12:14 am
and here we go. Meaty is back. Finally. After declaring victory because CT closed out the comments section of the last post, while beginning a new post, which Meaty conveniently forgot about until I reminded him. And instead of refuting what has been put forward as a rebuttal, he simply restates the question again and again, demanding an answer. It is what we call “proof by assertion“, which seems to be his tactic here.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:22 am
Duncan this is the way of Meaty. He lives in a black and white world, void of diversity and color and differences; he has no ability to see the differences from HIS view to the facts. Poor kid, in a way. Like most liberals he lacks a vision that is reality based, and he lives in a world of darkness and blindness. Sadly the blind will probably vote the ultimate BLIND ONE into Presidential office Tuesday- Obama is not only color blind, (yeah right he’s the racist of racist) he is dull and dumb. Obama will spread the wealth via income tax redistribution, and people who do nothing will be rewarded and paid for such effort.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
meatbrain, I thought I’d addressed your questions in my post, but let me answer more directly.
Answer to 1) : yes
Answer to 2) : no
The problem is that your second question is a loaded one, because your phrase “individuals who have done nothing to earn the money…” indicates an unstated assumption that only the people who have performed the physical labor of extracting the oil and gas (i.e. the oil companies) have “earned” that money.
In fact, the basis of the State receiving income for the Permanent Fund is the basis of ownership, not labor.
My understanding is that the State of Alaska (or perhaps the Federal government) owns the land and have leased exploration and development rights to these oil and gas deposits. We’re talking about what is called passive income, in that the owner of the land does notdo anything in terms of physical labor to extract the commodity – that’s up to the lesee – but is able to sit back and collect money anyway from the lesee.
The justification is that extraction of a depletable resource such as oil, etc. deceases the value to the owner of the land (or more accurately the value of the mineral rights, which in turn affects the value of the propery) because there is less amonunt of these resources remaining. Secondarily, there are other losses that the owner suffers because of the lesee’s presence and activities on his land, which are reasonable to expect compensation for.
So yes, the State is collecting royalties, which are earned on the basis of ownership, not labor. And having collected these revenues, it is not unreasonable to distribute at least some portion to its citizens. The citizens have no less right to that revenue as does the state, since the citizens collectively in fact own this land – government’s ownership claim is a delegated ownership right granted to it from the citizenry.
Our system of government is predicated on the fact the government ultimately is subordinate to the people and not is an independent entity with inherent ownership rights to ANYTHING.
Thus the only way you could attack the right of the Alaska citizens to receive these dividends is to take the hoary Marxist position of denying private property rights and claiming that only those doing the labor have full claim over the product, which translates to your claiming that the oil companies have squatter’s rights over the oil.
Is this your argument, or are you just playing games?