A lot of people talk about how under Socialism, the goal of the government is the welfare of its citizens. This is in contrast to a Capitalist setup, they say, where the only concern of the system is profit. While this is true and seems in favor of Socialism at a glance, let's lay out all parties involved:
Goals of parties in Capitalism:
Government: Preserve the rights of the people and businesses.
Businesses: Produce the greatest legal profit.
Citizens: Trade salary for personal welfare.
In a Capitalist system, goods are produced in order to make profit. Every dollar that a person has and is willing to spend is like a vote towards what goods will be produced. Companies will compete to produce the goods most likely to be bought by the end consumer, and it is the consumer's job to ensure that the goods bought by his or her salary support his or her general welfare. The government's ONLY job should be to preserve rights.
The end result of Capitalism is the welfare of the citizens at the citizens' discretion.
Goals of parties in Socialism:
Government: Provide for the welfare of the citizens.
Businesses: Null - controlled by government.
Citizens: ???
In a Socialist system, the government's goal is the welfare of its citizens. What I find scary about this system is that rights need not apply. The problem in implementing this system is in determining who gets what. In Capitalism the system resolves with each dollar as a vote, but there's no inherent choice for socialism. Whether they dole out dollars, vouchers, or the products themselves, the amount that each person receives is either an amount equal to everyone else or based on need.
Whether this is right comes down to the question "Does everyone have the right to have sustenance provided for them?" If you answer "yes" to that question then you are very likely socialist. If you answered "no" then you are very likely capitalist.
If the above question is not taken into account, it is clear that Capitalism is much more efficient at distributing goods. If we think of each dollar as a vote, we can see that those companies who have the greatest income are the best at providing for the consumers' needs and those who have the best income
rofit are the most efficient. Those who provide more for society get more "votes" as to what goods get sent their way. The system is self-balancing and highly efficient.
Problems arise in Capitalism when people try to manipulate the system.
Returning to the question "Does everyone have the right to have sustenance provided for them?":
It is my personal opinion that people have the right to provide for themselves, but it is not a universal right that sustenance be provided, because it allows for leeches.
If there were no leeches and everyone provided for their own then the question is irrelevant and might as well say "Does everyone have the right to provide for themselves?" (Which I agree with.)
P.S. I realized after posting that this is the exact type of post everyone makes at INTJs forum. Does this make me a stereotypical INTJ?
