The previous post on Atlas Shrugged and Socialism caused a stir with at least one leftist veteran in the comments section. Fred G makes the erroneous point about Europe and then goes on to criticize rich Congressmen like Paul Ryan as a way to promote Socialism. Here is his comment:
Ayn Rand is pure Bull Sxxx. Look at Europe, their economies are doing fine and they do have what you call Socialism. How much longer do you think this country is going to last when all the assets go to the top 1% or 10%? The average American’s income has been stagnant for the past 30 years while the 1% and 10% got it all. That clown Paul Ryan from Wisconsin — the loudest mouth in the House always pushed for reducing Entitlements, while he had $750.00 bottles of wine for dinner. Wake-up, we have all been taken to the cleaners!
My answer was this:
Now that we established you are incorrect about Europe there is another great way to understand Socialism’s failures. Anytime the government controls something traditionally run by the private sector it has a higher risk of failure. When single systems with central control fail due to an accident, corruption or complacency the whole system or large parts of it suffer. When the private sector controls the same thing there is an incentive to do a better job due to competition. Also, when one part fails the whole system does not collapse. That is also why monopolies are avoided.
Let’s use your comment about Paul Ryan as an example. These people never suffer because they have immunity due to their wealth and position. So, what you are saying is you and those who agree with Socialism want to turn more things over to the likes of Paul Ryan & Pelosi to run? I think that makes my point and answers your objection. What do you think?
Fred G has not replied. Sometimes all you have to do is look for the contradictions in a person’s thought processes. You cannot complain about the fat cats that run our country and suggest we give them more control over it and then say it is a good thing. Oh, and the last point on a stagnant average income, under Socialism everything stagnates or goes down.