How Morality Ties to Socialism
Some people think that redistributing wealth is the solution to all social ill, but then we are forced to ask why so many people fight socialism from both ends. Some people say that welfare does not do enough while others say it makes people lazy and discourages them from productive pursuits. The reality is that society has practiced charity for thousands of years, but modern politics has a way of complicating things.
All of this is very important because food is important to everyone. There is the question as to whether or not food security is more important than its contribution to national debt or whether or not the money should be spent on other programs. Since welfare spending is expensive and food spending a fair portion of that spending, it is an economic question as well as a moral one.Â
From an economic point of view, the state has a horrible time raising revenue and this is a historic problem. Some people say that the government should raise more taxes while economists point out that people just change their habits to avoid the taxes. Rich people, for there part, have more options on how to make money and where to stash it and pay an effective lower tax.
This is the revenue side of the dilemma. The other side is that history has past down the idea that ordinary people should make their own living. There are two historic economic models, the first being the homestead or the township and the other method has been centralized economic planning. The general trend has been that central planning can govern a country for a while but eventually government spending breaks down during a time of crisis.
Socialism is nothing new. Central economic planning was a feature of ancient Egypt under the pharaohs, and medieval kings sometimes gave a considerable amount of leverage to guilds in order to achieve the productivity objectives of the king. The Russians in the 20th century did not invent economic planning; they were simply going against the trend that private entrepreneurship has an advantage over the government trying to create all the jobs.
Socialism is seen as the government controlling physical assets and giving them to people in exchange for their work or simply continued existence. Material resources are not the only thing that needs to be redistributed though. Lacking a king to force charity, many towns and more frontier-oriented countries substituted social rules instead. They put it into their culture and sometimes kept it for generations.
Charity is not based on force. It is about people believing in the common good because they have some sense of what happens when society gets too selfish or if society becomes too dependent on the dole of the emperor. Government handouts are a substitute for what people really need: the love and grace of other people.
Socialists also complain about a lack of education. That is another point. Governments give out resources on the grounds of pacifying the population. It is better if people be able to earn their own living if they can, and it is better for the government to make it easier to do so than to just give people free food permanently. The same institution handing out free stuff also ought to promote some sort of training that prepares people for society and a job.
What is morality? Morality is a substitute for coercive government. There is a compulsion to it, but it is for the common good and comes from a collective desire to promote the public well being. It might also come to strive towards the higher standard of a God. If things are for free, it is great for the beneficiary but does not solve the root of the problem. People need work because they solve their own problems better than the government, at least most of the time.
Doing good for other people reminds them that they are apart of a community and there is a choice between selfishness and love. Removing the choice removes the sense of community that it provides. It is not that selfishness is desirable or permissible, only that solutions are best made by the people who care most about the problem, and that is typically family and community. Charities are more efficient than the government, and communities are more efficient than business like charities.
Morality does not always redistribute wealth. It also redistributes opportunity, love, and grace. If anything, morality is the ultimate form of charity because all welfare is obtained from a concern for a higher standard and a sense of community well-being. If the redistribution of wealth is seen as a machine, it does not work so well because the human aspect is removed. In comparison, loving other people promotes charity. It also opens the doors of opportunity and mutual understanding.
If you believe in socialism, then try improving your attitude towards other people. Trying volunteering for a charitable organization if you believe in free things. After all what comes around goes around. If you believe in free, then try giving some free stuff like time and effort to other people. A belief in God most certainly aids this process. Without a little faith, we are just tribal creatures.