An Epiphany on Socialism

I’ve recently come to a realization about socialism after reading this article:

http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol28no5/28513RWclinton.html

No, I haven’t become a socialist, but I have learned a little about how socialists think. The point in question appears in the penultimate paragraph, where the author describes her dream candidate as “someone who would lead in building a movement to nationalize healthcare, transportation, communications, and energy under workers’ control.”

First of all, I wonder why we should limit ourselves to just these four areas. If capitalism is so bad and socialism is all it’s cracked up to be, why stop at just health care, transportation, communications, and energy?

But the main point is that socialists see socialism as a means of “power to the people”–the people own the government; the government owns x, therefore the people own x. Presumably, the people’s ownership of x would make x more responsive to the people’s will as opposed to that of cold, greedy corporate masters.

Conservatives tend to cast liberals as weak-kneed wimps who like the security of the government providing for all their needs. But for many (at least those in the socialist camp), the issue isn’t so much providence but power. The question then is: Does government control over something really amount to control by ordinary citizens?

I think this is a big ideological divide that both sides need to acknowledge and understand if there is to be any progress on this issue.

 

The Ultrasound Barrier

“Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator and Republican presidential candidate, has introduced a new bill that would require abortion practitioners to perform an ultrasound and allow women contemplating an abortion to see the pictures of their unborn child. The hope is that it will persuade many women to keep their baby.”

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3344.html

While I applaud the effort and think that this bill would save some lives, I question the effectiveness of it. After all, anyone who’s seen an ultrasound knows that it’s far from crystal clear. Even with the best equipment, a trained technician has to point things out to you that you wouldn’t have caught on your own: “Here’s the head; here’s a hand with five fingers . . .” Because the more the woman sees of the fetus, the less likely she is to go through with the abortion, if the person performing the ultrasound is also the one to be performing the abortion, he/she would not be inclined to look for those things and point them out. He/she is more likely to say, “I can’t see anything; it’s undecipherable.” And the photos shown to the mother would be ones that were taken carelessly.

In short, unless the abortionist is required to do a certain amount of diligence, the abortionist can get around the law pretty easily.

Moreover, this requirement would apply only to mid- to late-term abortions, as doctors won’t do an ultrasound before eight weeks’ gestation. Most abortions are performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

 

Health Care: What’s Wrong with this Picture?

A friend sends me this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

Two things strike me about this video:

(I should say at the outset that I generally favor the free market but am skeptical about its ability to solve the health care crisis.)

First, I see similarities between the tactics of opponents of socialized medicine and those of proponents of gay marriage: (a) They use anecdotal evidence, profiling a poor bloke who was forced to wait x months for a given treatment. In the case of gay marriage, they profile a gay couple that suffers hardship because their union is not legally recognized. Both camps attempt to pull at our heartstrings, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that what’s good for one person or couple is what’s best for the country. (b) They use the courts to accomplish what they can’t attain legislatively. Both camps know that it’s much easier to convince a single judge than it is to persuade the country at large, and it can have more immediate and far-reaching results.

Second, it would seem that if universal health care is really so bad, there would be a movement to get rid of it in countries that have it. But in fact the momentum is going in the other direction: There are proposals to implement the system in countries that don’t have it. Perhaps that’s because (a) people are generally happy with socialized medicine, and (b) it’s generally associated with a higher standard of living.

Now I don’t think universal health care is the entire solution either, but we should recognize disingenuous tactics when we see them.