Socialism: A System of Hubris and Avarice

by Austin Raynor

A common objection to a free market is that, due to man’s inherent selfishness, economic outcomes result which are not morally acceptable. This objection finds its manifestation in specific claims ranging from the argument that landlords overcharge poor residents to the outrage over the greed of Wall Street bankers as the perceived cause of the financial collapse.

The typical proposed solution to this ostensible problem is increased government intervention. However, this “solution” fails to take into account the fact that those in power—elected officials, “czars,” bureaucrats, etc.—are motivated as much by self-interest as is the rest of the population.

Consider, for instance, the $1.1 trillion spending bill recently passed by Congress. The bill approves a 2% pay increase for all federal workers. This comes at a time when 17.2% of Americans are either unemployed, have searched for but have since given up on finding a job, or have taken a part-time job because they are unable to find full-time work. Further consider that federal compensation per person, on average, is twice that of people employed in the private sector.

The bill serves to verify the accuracy of the perception of 71 percent of Americans who, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, “believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests.”

James Buchanan, who won a Nobel Prize for his work in Public Choice Theory, referred to the Public Choice Theory’s description of public servants’ behavior as “politics without romance.” Buchanan helped to dispel the myth, still common among many, that bureaucrats and politicians are motivated by a desire to further the public good rather than by self-interested concerns.

The Public Choice Theory posits that, like everyone else, politicians are motivated primarily by self-interest. Buchanan’s theory explains the opposition of congressmen to term limits, the prevalence of pork spending, legislators’ willingness to raise their own pay even while the public suffers, and a variety of other selfish acts on the part of those foolishly believed by some to be acting in the public interest.

Trusting the government with unlimited powers results in nothing short of tyranny. Fear of oppression, rather than imbuing one with a naïve trust in government, should instead fill one with a love for the benefits of decentralization and capitalism. In a capitalist system, power is decentralized and depends on market preference—I can only hold power, for instance, by convincing you to purchase my product.

But in a centralized, monopolistic system maintained by force, the threat of oppression is far greater. To advocate giving greater responsibility to bureaucrats to negate the ill effects of greed reveals both a psychological and historical ignorance.

As famed Austrian economic F.A. Hayek pointed out, “What is called economic power, while it can be an instrument of coercion, is, in the hands of private individuals, never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.”

The 20th century provided us with prominent examples of socialism gone awry: the horrors of Hitler and Stalin alone should illustrate the dangers of an intrusive, overbearing government.

As Thomas Paine observed, “virtue is not hereditary.” Therefore, even if you trust the leaders in power today, to allow the creation of overly powerful governmental structures is to invite abuse by future leaders who may not share in your good intentions. By surrendering our freedoms today, we are laying the groundwork for the horrors of tyranny tomorrow.

As Thomas Jefferson noted, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history be the answer to this question.”

Jefferson here touches on yet another negative, but telling, aspect of a socialist system: the immense hubris of its designers. The intellectuals and leaders of a socialist system believe that they know better than do the citizens; it is up to them, they believe, to act for the good of the individual even if it requires coercion.

Consider the health care reform bills currently making their way through Congress: they are supported by only 42% of Americans, yet Democratic leaders continue to proclaim how the legislation will be in everyone’s best interests. Legislators insist on managing our medical care, our education, our retirement—the list goes on. The socialist designer believes that he knows better how to run my life than I do.

As Adam Smith pointed out, “[t]he statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capital, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could be safely trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

Americans must be wary of continuing to hand over their hard-won liberties to bureaucrats and legislators in whose interest it is, not to serve the public good, but to promote legislation which enhances their own power and position. The government is not the hand of God and it is not unbiased. Only 12% of Americans believe Congress is doing a good job. It is folly to continue to surrender our liberties to such an unpopular and overbearing institution.