Well — only in America, as they say. Only here is the word “socialism” freighted with so much perceived menace. I take this to be a symptom of our unique national genius for stupidity. In every other free society with a functioning market economy, socialism is an ordinary, rather general term for sane and compassionate governance of the public purse for the purpose of promoting general welfare and a more widespread share in national prosperity...I have discussed these points.
In countries where, since World War II, the principles of democratic socialism have shaped public policy (basically, everywhere in the developed world except here), the lives of the vast majority of citizens, most especially in regard to affordable health care, have improved enormously. This is acknowledged by almost every political faction, whether “liberal” (like Social Democrats), “conservative” (like Christian Democrats) or “progressive” (like Greens). And the preposterous cost projections that American conservative propagandists routinely adduce to prove that “socialized medicine” or a decent public option would exhaust our Treasury are given the lie in each of those countries every day.
Democratic socialism is, briefly put, a noble tradition of civic conscientiousness that was historically — to a far greater degree than either its champions or detractors today often care to acknowledge — grounded in deep Christian convictions. I, for instance, am a proud son of the European Christian socialist tradition, especially in its rich British variant, as exemplified by F.D. Maurice, John Ruskin, William Morris, R.H. Tawney and many other luminaries (including, in his judiciously remote way, C.S. Lewis), but also in its continental expressions (see, for example, Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, with its prescient warnings against the dangers of unfettered capitalism).
First, Hart doesn't understand the fundamental nature of democratic socialism.
Second, Hart doesn't understand the fundamental nature of the problem with government involvement in the healthcare sector.
-RW
For advocates of socialism the toughest thing to justify is the inherent violence needed to enforce their policies. How does Mr. Hart “a proud son of the European Christian socialist tradition,” square being grounded in deep Christian convictions with theft (Thou shalt not steal) or the Thou shalt not covet commandments, and when resistance is sufficient Thou shalt not murder?
ReplyDeleteBut Mr. Hart isn’t really talking about socialism: the means of production, distribution, and exchange owned by the state; or the more expanded: ownership by the public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership. No, in fact he includes a market economy as part of his socialism, “In every other free society with a functioning market economy, socialism is an ordinary, rather general term for sane and compassionate governance of the public purse for the purpose of promoting general welfare and a more widespread share in national prosperity.” Now isn’t that lack of specifics an open door for the sociopathic tendencies of politicians and bureaucrats?
But Mr. Hart was pretty specific about healthcare and he did mention a few other services such as education and retirement care. There are two ways to obtaining goods and or services: Mutually agreed on exchange between owner/supplier and customer or forced exchange. Forced exchange requires violence or the threat of violence. Advocates of socialism seem to think that violence by the state is acceptable, with “democratic” socialist accepting the violence as long as there is more than 50 percent of “their citizens” in favor of subjecting the minority.