The Invaluable Socialist Logic part #2 - Perspective

Link to the first part of Socialist (lack of) Logic

One of these socialist features of University Life is portrayed in certain subjects; sociology is the prime example, but also Public Policy, a subject I had the great (mis)fortune to study last semester. When basing its raison d'être on the right of Government to control and intervene, it obviously becomes very biased toward socialist frameworks/attracts students with those values. Not to mention all the students mopping around about 'intersectionality' or staff going on strike every other day. Where are all the freedom-minded students?

Anyway, here's a fun example from Public Policy course of last semester.

Apart from continuously reading from Fredrich Engels, taking his words for granted, my lecturer had such a striking example of socialist logic:

Before Industrial Revolution
First she explained to us a view of 18th and 19th century Great Britain, before the technical and economical changes of the Industrial Revolution. She depicted an awful environment, vividly describing how poor women in rural areas had to spend their entire day on sewing tiny, tiny laces which were used for table decorations in Upper-class homes. For this, they made the equivalent of 2 pence. Oppressive, horrible life, lots of them became huckle-backed and blind from working in the dark. Let's just neglect the discussion of historical accuracy of this description and take it at face value.

After Industrial Revolution
Now machines were invented that could do 10-20 or even a 100 times what these women had been capable of doing in a day. My lecturer, consequently, condemned the change in society, arguying that these poor women no longer could spend their entire days on sewing laces, because machines took their jobs - and they became unemployed! Horrible, oppressive unemployment.

You'd think that if sewing these tiny laces all day, which were sold for essentially nothing, was such a horrible treat, finally getting rid of it and being able to dedicate yourself to somethink less harsh - that'd be a good thing. Nono, not in Socialist Logic. Whatever happens, whatever the reason, the oppression of poor workers is taken as given. Also, it's a terribly convenient position to take; when workers do a, they're oppressed. When they finally are relieved from doing a, they're oppressed. Falsifiability, anyone?

Especially awkward is this description of 19th century life when the lecturer appropriately forgot to mention that the standard of living between 1780-1860 increased some 150% for regular poor people like these. Well, well. Nobody accused socialists for being thorough. Or even coherent.

Socialist Logic: Everything is always bad and capitalism is oppressive. Period. Especially when capitalism/globalisation over the last 20 years lifted some 900-1000m people out of poverty. Awful, really.

Disabled people in a libertarian society

In some earlier post I promised to write about disabled people in a libertarian society.

To begin with, the historical background would be useful.

It all started with a change of idea of government's responsibilities in society. In other countries, similar events took place, transferring the responsibility for certain tasks from the individuals to the State. In the UK this happened through the Factory Acts of 1833, where the first step towards state intervention in the workplace took place. Through these series of acts, the amount of hours children were allowed to work in factories was gradually reduced. Although such changes might not have had large effects on overall life, it is widely regarded as a watershed; the first time a UK Government took responsibility for the "well-being" of its citizens. From that on, through countless of acts in different areas such as the school reforms, liberal reforms in late 19th century, old age pensions, national insurance, the modern post-war Welfare State emerged, with features of redistributions and NHS recognizable to most UK citizens of today.

A fascinating development in many aspects. Simultaneously, the idea of freedom, self-reliance, providing for oneself, one's family and those one cares about became less recognized as a task for the individual. We more or less forgot values of the past and relied to a larger extent on the state (that is, other people's money) for a bunch of crucial services.

What we need now is another revolution, another watershed like the one in early 19th century. We need to grasp the idea that WE are in charge of our lives. WE are responsible for the our well-being and the well-being of those we care about. And the means to which we could accomplish this is naturally different; some might chose to hire someone to look after their children, other might want to spend time with their parents in the latter stages of life, some might dedicate their entire careers at taking care of other people, starting voluntary organisation that provide such care or businesses in a marketplace. Financed through voluntary interaction, donations or market-based solution. Non-coercive, voluntary, consistent with the libertarian ideas.

I actually wanted to tell you the story when I first realized that such a way was plausible, even desirable. My mother and I had been visiting my 95-year-old great-grandmother. An amazing woman, whose lifestory I have wanted to write an extensive piece about for quite some time. Her eyes have given up long ago. She is severely limited in her communication, she is very depressed, cries a lot and calls for the Lord to take her away. She stays at a home for elderly people where she is been treated fairly well, I suppose - and has so been for the last 10-15 years.

Visiting her is often not a joyful experience, but it always brings me fascination over her life - and raises questions about our relation to our elderly. Why do we put them away like that, visit them once a month to talk about nothing for half an hour and then leave, feeling that we upheld some social duty?

So I asked my mother about it, and she told me that she'd much rather take care of granny herself. Much, much rather would she have her live in our house, mum being able to take care of her, support her and actually spend time with her in our own home.

- Why don't you?, I asked, curiously. What's stopping you?
- I can't afford it, she said, the household needs two incomes.

Essentially, if our household had an even larger income, or if tax levels would come down sufficiantly, her desire of spending time with granny at home might be a real option. In the Welfare State of today, taxes naturally fund a lot of different things, from elderly care to schools and road constructions. But what if those areas wouldn't be the responsibility of the State? And that we'd be accustumed to pay for the services we use, rather than arbitrarily pay for all services somebody else deem crucial for a State to perform?

In a society where the responsible of taking care of the elderly isn't alienated, recognised as somebody else's task and payed for by a tax-funded government, individuals can actually make that kind of decision themselves. Now the financial incentives distort such options. It would come down to money and percieved value - just like any other market transaction. At some point I suppose my mum would quit her job, rely on 1 income only and take care of her elderly relative. It could also be done through hiring somebody for those hours when my mother is at work, or through a voluntary society, a church association or helpful neighbours. The possibilities are endless - but it seems we've all forgot about them.

Ok, so I was gonna answer the topic of disabled people and ended up telling you a story of my great-grandmother. Not heads on, but the same ideas applies for disabled people. We don't need a tax-funded government to take care of our loved one. We can do that ourselves.