This showed up Friday at the FEE website
The rest of it is here. Comments, suggestions, and questions can be directed to test.veeschay@gmail.comSo the S-word has surfaced in the presidential campaign. One candidate accuses the other candidate of being a socialist because he would raise taxes on the wealthy while "cutting taxes" for, among others, workers who pay no income taxes. The accused laughs it off, saying next he'll be called a communist for sharing his toys in kindergarten. (Of course, then he was sharing his own toys.) Meanwhile, the first candidate -- the one hurling around the "socialism" charge -- says if elected he'll buy up shaky mortgages and send checks to people who pay no income taxes so they can get medical insurance.
I'm beginning to understand how Alice felt.
This is as weighty as political campaigns get in America. Those with an appetite for hearty political debate are suffering the pains of malnutrition, which nothing short of nightly doses of "The Daily Show" can relieve.
As for the S-word, certain distinctions are worth maintaining. As Ludwig von Mises noted, socialism and interventionism are different beasts. Strictly speaking, a (state) socialist longs for the abolition of the market, free exchange, money, and private ownership of one's labor and the means of production. Central planning of all production would take the market's place. The interventionist "merely" longs to distribute some of the fruits of the market according to his own high-minded predilections.
Today no one is calling for the nationalization of anything.
Well, except for the banks.
And the insurance companies. But nothing else.
Ok, the auto companies too. But that's it. The rest of the market would remain in operation. I mean it.
...
What's so funny about the "socialism" charge is that if we were to rid the government of all wealth transfers, there would hardly be anything left. It's what government does. It's built in, and the progressive income tax is not the only culprit. Under a flat tax some people would pay no taxes -- there's always a zero bracket, or personal exemption -- and those who earn more would pay more dollars than those who earn less. Assuming everyone gets the same government "services," we have to conclude that the richer subsidize the poorer. The only way out of this would be a head tax, but that's not going to happen.
