There is a constant political battle going on between the socialistic ideals of the Democratic party and the more capitalistic ideals of the Republican party. Although America is considered a capitalist country, it has been drifting slowly towards socialism since the time of the New Deal. With each new entitlement program, more and more of the country's wealth is being controlled by the federal government. The major socialist programs in America are Welfare, Social Security, and Public Education.The support and expansion of these programs have been a mainstay of Democratic political power for the last 70 years. Currently there is a battle going on to take over the billions of dollars spent on health-care. This would seem to be an easy sell, most people like the idea of free or cheap health-care, but is this really in our best interest?

In theory, socialism sounds great, who can argue against a system where everything is shared equally. But the reality of socialism is quite different. Socialism looks at economic resources as a big pie, people who have more pieces of pie then others are obviously being greedy, and are taking pie from those that are less fortunate. This theory does not take into account human nature or the fact that it is possible for the pie to grow. It is a philosophy based on scarcity and envy. But the worst part about socialism is the belief that all resources should be controlled by a central authority and then distributed to everyone according to their need. By giving control of your wealth to a central authority, you give up your freedom. In a democratic country, people who are dependant on the government will always support the party that promises to protect their entitlements. The party that benefits from this support will have no need to improve the lot of their constituients. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the Democratic party to seek ways to help people get off of welfare. Instead, the Democrats benefit by increasing the number of people needing welfare and if they can control the nations health care system, they will ensure themselves millions of more people who will be dependant on their largess. Thus ensuring their power.

Proponents of socialism talk about a benevolent government that looks after the interests of everyone in a fair and impartial way. But where is such a government? Do you trust our government to look after your interests? Would you trust a dictator such as Adolf Hitler or Fidel Castro. How about an oligarchy such as in China? Maybe you would prefer a royal family such as the house of Saud. Then there are the elected leaders that become de facto dictators such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. All of these rulers control their countries by controlling it's wealth. They provide basic services to keep their populations in line, and then provide a generous share of the pie to themselves and their supporters. The bottom line, wealth is power, controlling all the wealth gives you absolute power and absoluter power corrupts absolutely.

So what about Capitalism? It seems that for many people, capitalism has become a dirty word. Capitalism is survival of the fittest. If you are smart enough, or sneaky enough, you can attain wealth. But if you are honest or not overly smart you end up with nothing. In these simplistic terms it does not appear to be very appealing. But once again the theory is different from the reality. In a capitalistic society, a person can become very rich or very poor based on their abilities or drive. In an economically free society some people become very rich, some people become moderately rich, some are in the middle, some are poor, and some live in absolute poverty. Such a diverse economic tends to be very dynamic. Power is not something that is held by a few and jealously guarded. Instead power is distributed among those that have found a way to be successful. This tends to lead to new innovations and improvements in life for everyone. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are extremely wealthy men. They have more money then they could possibly use in their lifetime. It just doesn't seem fair that one person should amass so much wealth. But look at the effects of their success. Thousands of people are making a very good living due to their success, and people like them. They found a way to grow the pie and many people are rich because of them. Is this such a bad thing? Individual innovators becoming very wealthy while creating new industries and new forms of wealth for thousands of others?

Of course this does not happen in all capitalistic societies. Like their socialist brothers, people who have amassed great wealth and power have a tendency to want to keep and acquire more power, the greedy part of capitalism. In a country where the government colludes with a few successful business people, those in power will try to control it by exploiting those that are not as fortunate. The nature of business in a capitalistic society is to try and gain market share, those that manage to acquire a monopoly will manipulate the market to their advantage. The advantages of a free economic society can be destroyed if enough power and wealth can be accumulated by a few. Once this happens the society can no longer be considered economically free. So for a capitalistic society to remain free and prosperous, there needs to be an outside power to keep the playing field even. This is where an independant democratically elected government comes in. I believe that is necessary to have a government that is both capable and willing to limit the power of corporations, I also believe that a dynamic capitalistic economy can help to limit the power of the government. If the majority of wealth is in the hands of the citizens, then the majority of power is also in their hands. If a few huge corporations hold the majority of wealth then they will control the power and most likely the goverment.

It is not in the interest of freedom to have a pure socialist or capitalist society. Rather the ideal system will be somewhere in between. I believe that a goverments role should be in regulating industry to ensure that large corporations are not able to manipulate their industry or exploit people. Goverment should not own an industry. that is no different then having a single company with a monopoly. So just how much economic freedom are we willing to give up for our social programs?

Technorati Tags: Capitalism, Politics, Socialism, National Healthcare, Welfare