An Online Debate with an Ignoramus Filipino Statist: Socialists are Mostly Educated
Now I’m very much convinced that the people who believe in the virtue or goodness of socialism or statism are mostly educated. In my online debate with Tet Gallardo, a strong supporter of RH bill and an admirer of Marx-less socialism, I learned that it is the blind desire or motivation of other people, mostly educated, to selflessly serve the interest and welfare of the poor, the weak, and the less privileged that poisons their minds to believe in the altruistic power of government intervention and control. Yes, it is the morality of selflessness or altruism that makes them believe in the power of the state to redistribute wealth as a corrective measure designed to address the alleged “injustice” of the rich and the successful and to guarantee equal opportunity by sacrificing the producers and the creators of wealth to the weak, the lazy, the incompetent.
Stupid statist Tet Gallardo said: “We cannot allow ourselves to be trapped into thinking that the only way to oppose capitalism is to oppose competition or to achieve the demise of private property through class warfare or bloody revolution.”
Here’s my reply:
What’s the other way to oppose it? Remove competition and you’ll have nationalization or total government control of the means of production. That’s what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, if you understand your current world history. What Chavez did is that he removed the existence of open competition in the market place by nationalizing the entire industry. The result? Socialism.
Also, remove private property and you’ll have socialism overnight. In fact it’s the easiest one-way ticket to socialism, as it is the goal of the leftists to totally eradicate property rights. As what Karl Marx said, private property is theft. It’s either-or. It’s either individualism or collectivism. Or, to be very specific, it’s either free market system or socialism. Observe that the advocates of socialism, or any form of statism or collectivism, seek to abrogate property rights. For them, property rights is evil. Under all forms of collectivism- such as Nazism, Fascism, socialism, or communism- property rights is always the first to go or curtailed.
She went on to say: “That is a trap that communists are fond of setting. They are as crazy as the believers of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.”
Well, that’s what you think because you clearly don’t understand the concept of capitalism. Like I said, Capitalism is the recognition of individual rights. Under a free market, the role of the government is limited to the protection of individual rights, thus this system precludes the government from giving political and economic favors to oligarchs and monopolists. I repeat, the only role of the government under a free market system is that of a policeman. That is, the government is only duty-bound to protect the rights of every social members against rights violators, breach of contract, disputes, and even internal conflicts and invasion. Socialism does the opposite, as the state or the government rules everybody else’s life!
Tet Gallardo: “As you said the early American experience was that of a FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, but that no longer exists.”
For your information, that was predicted by Thomas Jefferson more than 200 years ago. Jefferson said: “OUR RULERS WILL BECOME CORRUPT, OUR PEOPLE CARELESS.”
But that doesn’t mean that Capitalism caused it. It is capitalism that made America the greatest country on earth, economically, politically and militarily. That’s also what happened to Sweden. When America became so great, economically, its past leaders then forgot its humble beginning. They forgot that they started with limited government system. The past leaders, from Nixon to Obama imposed controls and regulations, and blame all economic crises on the market.
The same thing happened to Sweden many decades back. Sweden was at the height of its economic success due to capitalism and less government control when the socialists came to power and established welfare statism, offered government-funded services to the people from education to health care to housing, etc. and imposed state controls on the economy. What happened is the most expected. The Swedish businessmen left Sweden to invest in other countries.
Now Sweden can no longer cope with its internal crisis.
Tet Gallardo: “Government is a tool by which people who are opposed to competition can ensure that there is no competition.”
There is a proper role of the government. Like I said, the only proper role of the government is to protect individual rights. The government cannot and can never be made a tool to people who are opposed to competition if we put the government in its proper place- and if we remove such kind of capricious power from the government and its agents.
But you should understand that you, RH bill proponents and supporters, are trying to give the government more powers to rule our lives. If you really read the bill, you RH bill supporters are clamoring to give the government to control the entire business sector through a single provision pertaining to Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). You are also asking the government to control the entire medical profession and the education sector. Read the bill!
Here are the very POSSIBLE effects/impacts of the bill on your rights and freedom:
* Big government, which means the government will have to assume a bigger role to rule our lives.
* More government regulations of the business community, the medical profession, and the education sector.
* There would be higher prices of commodities and services, including medical services. Why is this the case? It’s because employers and even hospitals would be compelled to raise their prices in order to offset the RH expenses they pay for their workers. If they don’t do this, they’d go BROKE!
* There would be more regulations and controls to come. The government could even issue PRICE CONTROLS in order to legally prevent companies from raising their prices.
*The system would corrupt the entire medical profession. Since RH services would be partly or even fully subsidized by the government and/or paid for by employers, hospitals might look at opportunities to get more patients or RH beneficiaries rather than focusing on quality health care. How much should a hospital charge for every RH care visit to be covered by Philhealth or a private company? How would the government or state regulators know whether a particular clinic or hospital mis-declare the number of its patients, its price, etc?
Private companies and firms would be compelled to lay off workers or not to hire women or new workers in order to avoid more RH care expenses. This is very much possible since the bill includes punitive or penal provisions against employers who refuse or fail to comply with their “responsibilities.”
*There would be less innovation in the medical industry since one of the effects of the bill is that it justifies state or government’s fixing of the prices of medical services. If the government through PhilHealth pays for the RH case expenses of poor people and if employers pay for the expenses of their workers, then that gives the government the “right” to regulate or control the prices of RH services.
*The government would be compelled to levy additional tax rates or new taxes or borrow money from foreign sources in order to fully deliver the promises of the bill.
*The bill, if ever enacted, would have a negative impact on our individual rights and freedom, as it allows the government to have more power to heavily regulate the business sector, the medical profession, the education sector, and to rule our lives.