Why Socialism Always Fails

I am alarmed over the numerous issues plaguing our deteriorating American culture, but one specific issue rises above all the others. I am appalled at our citizens’ lack of a fundamental knowledge of world and American history, especially for those Americans under the age of 40. Those over 40 have no excuse. For example, I am dumfounded by today’s fascination with and acceptance of socialism.

History is littered with brilliant minds who were convinced collectivism and socialism were the certain and proper methods of organizing societies to bring about the greatest freedom and prosperity for all the people. Notwithstanding the nature of humans, it is difficult to argue against this ideology. However, the humans really muck things up; but I’m getting ahead of myself.

You would have expected, following the first few failures of socialist-styled economic systems, that contemporary  leaders and thinkers would have re-visited the basic tenets of their ideology and identified the primary reasons for its failure. But that didn’t happen and what we have experienced over the last two centuries and continuing today are repeated attempts to establish socialistic systems -- all meeting with the same result, collapse and failure. I really don’t believe this is all that difficult to explain.

First, we must consider the nature of humans. To begin, we must answer the question, did and does ambition and greed and the desire for power, influence and relevance exist among the peoples of the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Socialist Venezuela, Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy? Of course! These are not qualities found exclusively in capitalist societies; they are intrinsic to humanity. It is because of these qualities humans have become incredibly clever in their ability to survive even in the direst of situations. The strongest and most ambitious will find ways and means to thrive in such environments. In each country above, there existed and exists an elite ruling class which has afforded themselves greater privileges than were available to the masses. One may argue, ‘that is their just reward for serving the people’. However, the lengths to which they will go to protect, sustain and enhance their privileges is where the system begins to fall apart. How much is enough if it all can be confiscated without due process? The “deep-state” is nothing new.

We also must admit humans are not created with all the same talents, gifts, and attributes. Some are hard workers, some are not. Some believe in fair play, others not so much. Some are content and happy, others are jealous and resentful. Some are controlling and judgmental, others are more tolerant and forgiving. These and many other human qualities are found in every culture regardless of its societal platform. However, these qualities are less apparent and more destructive in socialist societies because these societies are so desperately dependent on everyone working as hard as the other person. Where there is no reward or recognition for fulfilling your duties and obligations or for going above and beyond, it is difficult if not impossible to sustain any kind of standards or expectations. When a government coerces the behavior of the governed by and through the application of controls and disincentives, the society as a whole descends to the level of its lowest common denominator.

I offer one last explanation as to why socialism wasn’t pronounced dead long ago. As each generation arrives and begins to contemplate their existence, there is a universal conviction among this generation that all previous generations were simply a prelude to their own existence. That is, they believe their generation is the one the world was created for. They do everything they can to assert and secure this anointment, often and unwittingly repeating the patterns of their elders and ancestors. If something had been tried and failed, the fault lies in the execution, not in the concept or doctrine. If you listen closely, you’ll often hear them say, “we’ll do it right this time”, completely ignoring the lessons of history. This is why you can’t have a rational discussion with a young socialist. As for the older ones, socialism is simply a means to an end.

Now, I have not put forth any new revelations nor related any unique perspectives. All of what I have written is a product of studying history and of observation, and it brings to mind George Santayana’s often repeated quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Citizen Guardians

There was a time in this country when a law enforcement officer could walk alone into a troubling situation with the confidence the people were on his side, that he had all the backup he needed if things should get out of hand.  There was a time when officers were allowed to exercise good judgment first, before resorting to their authority, brute strength, weapons skills, martial arts and tactical training.  “Yes Sir” used to be the first two words of every reply to an officer’s query.  What can our law enforcement agencies do to help restore the public’s confidence, trust and respect for our citizen guardians?  Here are a few suggestions:

   1.   Take off the reflective Ray-Bans, put on a smile, and introduce yourself to the citizen with whom you are engaged.  Give them a business card for their future reference.

   2.   Traffic regulations and enacted laws are primarily intended to curb criminal behavior and punish the violators.  Treating a usually law-abiding citizen like a common criminal is not the foundation upon which we build mutual respect and trust.

   3.   Stop using traffic laws as a principle source of revenue for the public entity.  The fact our elected officials have negligently diverted resources from essential community services should not be justification for such policy.

   4.   Be courteous and polite to those you are issuing a citation.  Yes, the citizen is probably disturbed and this is all the more reason why acting in a professional, engaging and respectful manner is imperative.  The use of “a warning” for a non-egregious violation will do wonders for the relationship.

   5.   Re-consider the necessity of wearing 40 pounds of gear and weaponry as your normal work attire.  If you look like a storm trooper, you will be thought of and treated like a faceless, anonymous storm trooper.

   6.   Stop referring to a fallen or wounded officer as, “one of our own”.  It reinforces the “we versus they” or the “us against them” syndrome.  Unless, of course, you use the phrase to mean “one of our own citizens”.

   7.   Get rid of the military style rank insignias.  You are not the military, and you should know the difference.  Soldiers are trained to obey the orders of their superiors without question.  Law enforcement officers are expected to use good judgment, restraint, and concern for the welfare of the people.

   8.   Stop saluting at formal ceremonies.  If you want to show respect, hold your hat in hand across your chest.  If you don’t have a hat, place your right hand over your heart.  Do your best to resemble the people you serve instead of the opposite.

   9.   And yes, stop marching in military-like formations on any occasion.  The more you look like and act like a military organization, the more you will be regarded as militaristic and set apart from the community you serve.

10.   Lose the privilege you believe you have earned by wearing the uniform of the law.

11.   And for the department’s leadership, stop accepting funds and materials from other levels of government.  They come with strings attached and ulterior motives -- sooner or later you will have to choose between the people you serve or your department’s benefactors.

Bill Monroe

Southlake, TX

Free post-secondary education! Is this a good idea?

I believe the decision to provide free, post-secondary education or training should be left to the individual states without federal government oversight, grants or subsidies.  Let the voters in each state decide how they want their tax dollars apportioned among essential services and social programs.

I see a big difference between subsidizing the basic needs of qualified and deserving recipients and providing a free, post-secondary education to our high school graduates.  However, both have worthy ideals – compassion and investment.  Nevertheless, this discussion raises a number of questions and issues.  Some of these are as follows:

   1.   Before we start giving away so-called free stuff, let’s ask the student how their free elementary and high school educations worked for them.  I mean did they really appreciate the education they received courtesy of their parents hard-earned tax dollars or direct payments, and if they did, how did they show their appreciation?  Did they do their best to get the best possible education by choosing the most challenging academic courses or those courses which will prepare them to compete in a global market?  What was it they wanted – a high school diploma or a real education?

   2.   Let’s also consider what aspects of the education are free?  Are we talking tuition only or do we include books, tools and materials, housing, meals, transportation, modest living expenses, and entertainment?

   3.   If a post-secondary education is free, what academic requirements do we place on the student for admission to the school?  I mean, if it’s free, shouldn’t we just forget admission requirements and allow entrance to everyone who wants to attend?  Will this have any impact on the quality of the education received?  And if the educational institutions are compensated according to the number of students attending, won’t the institutions do their best to recruit as many students as possible?

   4.   In return for a free education, should the state have some requirements of the graduate, e.g., must remain in the state for a specified period of time following graduation, or must work in some capacity for any state entity or municipality for a minimum period of time?  After all, we don’t want to be handing out free educations only to have the recipients relocate to another state.  This is a possibility if some states don’t offer free post-secondary education.

   5.   Should there be an avenue for those who are able and desire to pay for their education so they are free to make employment and lifestyle choices following graduation?

   6.   What obligation do we have, if any, to protect those private institutions of higher-learning that do not directly receive any federal or state funds?  In other words, do we subsidize students who choose to attend these private institutions?  And if we do, are admission requirements waived for these students?  Or, do we say you must attend a state-sponsored institution if you want a free education?  What happens then to some of the most prestigious, respected and leading institutions of higher learning?

   7.   Should we establish performance standards for students receiving a free education?  For example, you must maintain a 3.0 grade point average (on a 4.0 scale) in order to continue receiving your education subsidy.

   8.   Should we require students to take a minimum number of credit hours per semester in order to qualify for an education subsidy?

   9.   What should be the state’s recourse should a subsidy recipient drop out of school before graduation or fail to maintain the required performance standard?  Should they be required to repay what they received or should they be required to perform community service until the debt is repaid?

10.   What should be the qualifications for a graduate to pursue a post-graduate degree?  What should be the deciding factors for continuing to receive an education subsidy?

11.   If the states are looking for a return on their investment, should there be an age limit to such subsidies?  Obviously, the older you are when you graduate, the less time you will have to repay your education expenses through your earned-income tax payments.

12.   Should the institutions be allowed to sustain non-academic activities and programs which are unable to generate sufficient revenue to cover their costs and expenses?  Is it fair to the taxpayer to fund such programs and activities?

13.   Should we envision a change in the manner in which state-subsidized institutions are governed?  Should taxpayers have a greater role in hiring and curriculum?

14.   How will we measure the performance of the institution?  Shouldn’t they be held accountable to produce meaningful and measurable results?

15.   Clearly, the institutions will not be able to accept an unlimited number of students.  How do we determine who gets in and who does not?  Is it first-come, first-served?  Or some other standard?

16.   And if the taxpayers are picking up the education bill, shouldn’t they expect maximum utilization of physical assets?  In other words, no summer vacations and extended Christmas or spring breaks.  School will be in session year round.  Let’s educate these young people as fast as we can and get them back into the workforce where they can start paying taxes.  (See item #8.)

17.   And of course, we will have to address the matter of the outstanding student loans.  After all, if education is going to be free, it has to be free for everyone – not just those with an advantageous birthdate.

18.   Should the taxpayers have the right to govern the behavior of the students receiving a free education?  For example, a student who smokes a pack a day (one-third of college students smoke), who uses one ounce of marijuana per month (25% of students use regularly), and who drinks a case of beer per month, will spend between $350 and $500 per month, on average, on these items.  Eliminate tobacco and we’re still at $200 to $250 per month.

19.   And we can’t finish this discussion without asking why a post-secondary education is so expensive.  One reason is that students and their parents don’t shop around for the best educational value.  They are more apt to succumb to loyalty, emotion, tradition and prestige over practicality and value.  Does anyone still believe, in this day and age, the school name on a diploma is worth what it cost?  It’s high time we take a serious look at quality two-year institutions for the core requirements of a four-year degree.  And there are a number of small, private four-year institutions which have done a masterful job of constraining costs and prices while delivering a superb education.  A second reason has been the prolonged and consistent failure of academic institutions to control their costs and expenses.  Instead, they pass on these increases to the students knowing the students will simply borrow the funds through the government’s guaranteed student loan program.  Without this program, schools would have been forced to address their rising costs if they wished to remain a competitive option.

In summary, the process of dismantling a system which has endured successfully for centuries is no simple matter.  In our country, it is further complicated by the fact the marketplace of education has been and remains highly competitive which has put our institutions of higher learning on the leading edge of discovery and innovation.  America’s leading role on the global stage owes much of its stature to the research and development flowing from academia.  Whatever we decide to do, let’s be certain to protect, sustain and nurture this remarkable national treasure.

Virtue vs. Ideology

One of the early signs, among many, of a deteriorating democratic society is the conscious choice by a near majority of voters to embrace ideology over virtue.  Virtue is one of two foundations upon which a society should be built; otherwise, the society cannot endure the vagaries of human behavior.  Where there is no path, where there is no course, the traveler wanders aimlessly, completely ignorant of their desperation.  Absolutes are essential to an ordered and civilized society, and they can only be found in the virtues of mankind.

To be virtuous demands we discard the safety and protection of the herd.  It demands we stand alone, set apart and exposed to the worst mankind can inflict upon us.  This may appear to be a frightening and lonely place yet the opposite is true.  The best human qualities are revealed when we follow our hearts, when we deny our own needs if favor of living a virtuous life.  It is only then that we are empowered to stand firm in the face of adversity because we now fully understand and value who we really are.

The most difficult test of our virtue comes when we must choose between two competing choices where both have displayed undesirable qualities.  How do we choose one over the other?  I know what I would do but I won’t be so arrogant as to tell you how to choose.  I will say, you already know the answer if virtue will have any place in your legacy.