20 thoughts on “The More People Are Exposed To Socialism”

  1. “The tide of science is turning against them.”

    Morte importantly the tide of experience is turning against them.

    Opinions of hardcore socialists and marxist will not be affected even through direct experience because they always say it wasn’t done right.

    Every time.

    Time after time.

    Over and over again.

    And what they don’t understand is that it’s the structure of socialism and human beings together which generate the failures. The very attributes of their method contains the seeds of it’s failure.

    1. They don’t learn from experience so they’re stupid, and doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. Stupid, insane, and power hungry is no way to go through life.

  2. The study shows something about dishonesty and being brought up in an authoritarian, impoverished communist regime like East Germany. It doesn’t show any connection between dishonesty and “socialism”. If it did, then I guess we’d include that Canadians are more dishonest than Americans, that all those scandanavian socialist hellholes are filled liars and cheats, and that the most honest people in the world live in capitalist utopias like Colombia.

    1. All governments are dishonest. The more power and control a government has, the more it must be dishonest. This is mainly because the genius ideas that the brain-addled bureaucrats come up with could not be sold on thier merits. And these ideas proliferate thereby flooding the system. And as there are very very very few things that a centralized government can do well, the inevitable failure of these genius ideas cannot be admitted to – or power willbe lost.

      And power must ALWAYS be preserved.

      Socialist governments, by definition, have more power and control, as compared to minimal governments dedicated to preserving individual liberty.

      This isn’t to say that a liberty-loving republic cannot evolve into a liberty-hating one which will lie cheat and steal as much as a socialist one. In fact you are watching that happen here in the US.

      1. So why is every scandinavian government less corrupt than “business-friendly” governments in Colombia, Uruguay, El Salvador, etc?

        2. Dave, do you consider El Salvador a capitalist country? Low taxes (compared to Sweden or the US) and even low regulation do not capitalism make. We can argue definitions, pointlessly, but I certainly don’t consider any Central or South American country capitalist except Chile. Hmm. Maybe Costa Rica too.
          And, Sweden is a capitalist country. Most business is in private hands. A high tax rate and generous benefits do not equal socialism. Words do have meanings. How much of Sweden’s farmland is in government hands? How many of their factories and shops?
          All that said, this study is rather dumb. I suspect that they are measuring how evil a government is, not how socialist it is. Or, possibly something else entirely. West and East Germany were different places before the cold war. Different religions and even somewhat different peoples.

          1. A high tax rate and generous benefits do not equal socialism.

            That would be news on this site, where any move to increase taxes or spending is considered socialist overreach. I read here all the time about how Obama is a crypto-socialist hell-bent on ruining the country. In fact, I’m sure Rand’s point in linking to the article was to try to draw some connection (backed by science!) that the left agenda results in moral corruption and evil.

            Words do have meaning.

            And yet you think it would be pointless to argue definitions. And then you arbitrarily declare any Central or South American country non-capitalist. By what criteria are they not? And if they aren’t, what are they?

            Most business is in private hands.

            I agree, that is a useful metric. In fact, I’ve made that same argument here myself — whenever Rand or others want to claim the nazis were “socialists”. In fact, the nazis left most business in private hands all the way until the end of the war, and business enthusiastically supported him. It was never Hitler’s intention to change ownership of industry (except where it conflicted with the party’s racist agenda).

          2. It was never Hitler’s intention to change ownership of industry (except where it conflicted with the party’s racist agenda).

            “Ownership” is meaningless when the government is in complete control of your company, as was the case under Hitler’s national socialist government. As, sadly, is the goal of Obama’s government.

          3. Most Latin American countries are mercantilist, not capitalist. They were set up with a top-down command economy designed to keep the Indians down and the Spanish in charge, and property ownership and business activity requires approval of various ministries.

            Socialists, sadly, don’t seem to know enough about economics to tell the difference.

        3. You honestly think those countries are business friendly? That is a lie. Throw out the stupid question.

    2. “It doesn’t show any connection between dishonesty and “socialism”. ”

      By definition, socialism is authoritarian.

      1. By definition, socialism is authoritarian.

        If you don’t see a difference between Sweden and East Germany, I can’t help you.

        I’ve traveled in both. The German Democratic Republic was an awful, awful place.

        1. If you don’t see a difference between Sweden and East Germany

          You mean like a population density in Sweden just 1/5th of the former East Germany region?

        3. The difference is accountability. Sorry you can’t see that. Sweden has the ability to elect people who will change the type of government.

          If fact, that is what they did. They realized their socialist system is too expensive.

  3. Sweden has pretty much abandoned socialism.

    Not by the standards of your readership. You call Obamacare creeping outright socialism, but somehow Sweden’s cradle to grave health care means they’ve abandoned the concept? What about that tax rate that’s one of the highest in the world?

    The difference is accountability. Sorry you can’t see that. Sweden has the ability to elect people who will change the type of government.

    I can and do see that. It’s called democracy — Sweden has had parliamentary traditions for going on 300 years now. They had democracy when they were (slightly) more socialist than they presently are. And this is my point — democratic socialist policies are not inherently authoritarian, just as capitalism can thrive in an authoritarian regime (see China, even if you’re not wiling to concede that capitalists did just fine in Nazi Germany).

    1. You asked, “So why is every scandinavian government less corrupt than “business-friendly” governments in Colombia, Uruguay, El Salvador, etc?”

      I responded by saying that they are accountable. I said this because you were trying to associate business with corruption, which is a shameful thing to do. What is your response? To agree with me.

      Now that we’ve established that accountability is important, and corruption is not tied to “business-friendly” countries, can we agree that Sweden has been reducing its government spending for many years.

    2. “And this is my point — democratic socialist policies are not inherently authoritarian, ”

      Maybe not but our Democrat socialists are authoritarian.

  4. Why woiuldn’t they? If you’re exposed to socialism long enough so that you come to buy the “need=right” fallacy and decide “If I need money I should steal it from someone else.” of course you’re going to behave like a putz.

Comments are closed.