This parable exerts a powerful appeal to emotion (

Quote:

---

This parable exerts a powerful appeal to emotion (fear), but it’s also propaganda because it’s based on that emotional appeal rather than logic.

Logically, it is premised on a fallacy. The characterization of all government-funded benefit programs as "socialism" rests on a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what socialism is.

"Socialism" means an economic or political system where industry ("the means of production and distribution" is owned and operated by the government rather than private individuals. As far as I know, there is no viable political party or candidate in the US which advocates such an idea.

Programs commonly described as "socialism" in American political rhetoric are instead projects which gather resources from the citizenry (taxes) and use them (if used properly) to accomplish goals which benefit the society as a whole. This is "redistribution" rather than "socialism." It would be more accurate to call it an institutionalized system of social responsibility.

Contributing to the welfare of the disadvantaged isn’t socialist, it’s Christian [Matthew 25:40 - "as you do unto the least of these, so have you done unto me."]

Is "redistribution" bad? I’d say it’s often necessary and desirable (again, if it is used properly). Can an individual build an interstate highway system, dam a river or raise an army? Of course not.

A portion of each individual society member’s resources is required to accomplish such large (and necessary) goals. I’d argue that there has never been a successful society that didn’t utilize redistribution in order to be successful.

An apt illustration is the typical American church community. Could its churches be built without tithing? Aren’t they financed by the redistribution of tithes from the whole congregation?

Doesn’t a church-based social support network, which provides food, shelter and employment for those in need, rely on the redistribution of resources from those who have much to those who have little? If redistribution is socialism, then these churches are socialist.

That said, there are of course many forms of redistribution which are undesirable. Government subsidies of any kind are highly suspect and should be avoided if there is any other effective alternative.

Thus, tobacco, dairy and crop subsidies should be eliminated since we have no shortage of those commodities. We also have no shortage of weapons and defensive capability, so military-based subsidies are largely unnecessary.

In times of genuine crisis, however, limited and temporary subsidies may be justified. In World War II, it made sense to subsidize industry in order to provide adequate materials for national defense. In the Great Depression, it made sense to subsidize all sectors of the economy and to provide welfare for a large number of individuals who were unemployed and had inadequate food or shelter.

There will probably always be some cases where military, economic or welfare subsidies are justified, but certainly not on that scale. And every subsidy program should be narrowly drawn to provide only what is truly necessary, for only so long as the necessity endures.

Currently, we DO have a shortage of affordable health care and medicine which most Americans might call a crisis. Despite the often heard boast that the US "has the best health care in the world," we now rank 29th in infant mortality according to the Centers for Disease Control.

That places us behind most of the other developed countries in the world (even behind Cuba) and exceeds our own government’s target rate by 50%.

We also spend more per capita on health care than any other nation, but lag behind in life expectancy, disease rates and percentage of the population receiving regular care. West European nations, Canada, Australia and Japan all rank higher than the US in standard measures of public health

(streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-statistics-on-health-care.html). Those countries, of course, have a "socialist" national health program that is subsidized by the government.

Personally, I don’t think it matters if a policy is socialist, capitalist, redistributionist, "Right", "Left", "liberal", "centrist" or "conservative." What matters is whether or not it works and how efficiently it is carried out.

I’ll support any politician or party that is effective at making government work for the benefit of all its citizens, just as I’ll oppose those who are too incompetent, too ideological or too self-interested to fulfill that responsibility.

With few exceptions, the Republican party has fully demonstrated that its current office-holders are incapable of governing effectively or responsibly.

---