Does Socialist Governing make for a resigned populace?

During my life I have had opportunities to visit many different countries.  Many of them were, at the time of my visit, ruled by governments that were Socialist in nature...some even coming close to Dictatorships.  And, over time, I have noticed a peculiar constancy of national attitude:  the level of "contentedness" is the inverse of the level of personal freedoms.  The higher the level of government control of personal and business life, the lower the level of happiness and the higher an attitude of "resignation."

There have been volumes written about the financial toll as well as the results of Socialist, Marxist and even Communist governing.  And one finds it hard to disagree with the fact that those types of governments have always ultimately failed...usually after having exhausted the earnings and savings of the "rich" to finance government benefits.  It is undeniable that during this period of governance there is a sense of "happiness" and contentment with this approach.

One difficulty with all of this is that during this period of euphoria over low cost or "free" benefits, the majority become accustomed to doing less work, lowering production as well as efforts to succeed; after all, the government is guaranteeing an acceptable existence without any consequences from failed performance...one need not "earn" anything.  It is, indeed, the good life...apparently.  And people adjust to that attitude.

But ultimately life demands the discovery and acknowledgement that there is no such thing as "free" anything...lunch, government benefits, guarantees, etc.  This is not a "happy" discovery, even to those who know in their depths of soul what the truth is...no one enjoys playing life's equivalent of Musical Chairs when the loser finds his family going hungry, without housing, and having lost the knowledge and conditioning to be independent.

Many of those nation states then turn to anarchy and slowly develop new government entities that for a time do not forget the lessons of the previous experience.

This commentary is NOT about those.

There are nations that even after the early blush of easy benefits continue to support a Socialist style governing...it usually has some democratic element, such as elections and the appearance or fact of some popular representation, yet applying the leveling elements of a Socialist environment.  Much of Europe is governed in this manner.

One of these nations is Norway.  My father immigrated to the United States almost a century ago; he waited for years and had to have a sponsor that guaranteed that he had a job ready for him, and had a place to live, and generally could show that he would not be a burden to the government or to anyone if he were allowed to come to the United States.  In due course he became a citizen...and held the United States in high esteem for the rest of his life; we were told that while our heritage was important, we were first and finally Americans and this was our country and to which we owed our total allegiance.  We were here to be a part of the American existence, not to complain or try to change it.

Why did he come to America?  Because he was from a family that had fallen on hard times, with the early and unexpected death of his father.  Norway guaranteed an existence.  He would never have gone hungry.  He would never not have had a job.

But...he could never have improved his existence.  He couldn't save enough to buy property and build a house...the taxes were too high.  Sure, that meant that he never had to pay for Doctors or hospital or elderly care services.  But he could not improve his personal existence.  The governmental system protected his status, but did not allow him the financial freedom to improve it.

America guaranteed nothing...BUT the chance, the opportunity, to risk all but allow him the reward as well as the consequences of his own efforts.  THAT is what America used to offer; it is the essence of a Capitalistic and Democratic governing status.

That opportunity to succeed on the basis of your individual efforts...as well as the risk of failure...is what makes democracies different from Socialist nations.  And that governing approach encourages an optimistic point of view as well as the total effort to succeed on a self-reliant basis.  For my father and for many of his friends, a government guarantee would have been an insult...an indication that someone thought they weren't good enough to succeed on their own, that they were "less-than" others.  Even during the Great Depression, my father did whatever work he could find and never once doubted that he would survive and ultimately succeed.  Even during that period, my father remained optimistic, knowing...believing...that the hard times would pass and he would then succeed.

His attitude was the same that our Founding Fathers must have had; they wanted independence, not patriarchal or matriarchal care and governance.

Americans always have complained...but they also found much to support their internal happiness.  For every element in their lives that were a challenge, there was one or more that provided a source of happiness, of opportunity, of joy.  No one problem was insurmountable.

In socialist nations the government is the single, overwhelming element in your life;  if you have a problem and the government cannot "fix" it, it will never be fixed.  You are locked into a level of existence and, while that might be insured, you will rarely be able to change it or improve your place in that society.  And that promotes a certain sense of resignation and even sadness that colors your existence.  Oh sure, there are celebrations and moments of joy...but they are temporary and often seem transparently unable to hide the underlying sense of having to be satisfied with what and where you are.

Lately, I have found myself looking around and growing sad as so many Americans seem to be coming to the conclusion that their only choice is to take what the government can provide, feeling uneasy but finally accepting the not-always-so-slow incursion of government into their lives, regulating how they can live, what they can say, what they can read or hear, who or what they may worship in public.  Like wild pigs, they are becoming comfortable with being fed, instead of foraging on their own, and ignore the erection of a fence on one side of the food, to be followed by the erection of a second side...and so on, until they will find that they have allowed themselves to be imprisoned and no longer have any freedom of choice at all.  And then they, too, will feel what my father felt so long ago in Norway; an imprisoned existence.  And there will be no "United States of America" to hold the promise of a different way of life.

Slavery...are we slaves?

Slavery is a simple concept...I thought.  The definitions are rather clear and seem easy to understand.  Merriam-Webster says that a slave is one held in servitude as the chattel of another or that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.  All that seems clear enough.

Can one be a slave if not owned by another?  And, can you be a slave if you are not aware that you are one,i.e., either born or have become accustomed to being controlled by others or another?  That is, is self-awareness of the condition a requisite for the classification.  Apparently not, from the definitions...but more on that a bit later.   Also...if you voluntarily give power over yourself to another, but then decide you wish to rescind it and find that you cannot, does that result in a condition of slavery.

These questions came about because of an article I read recently that suggested that living in America had become an existance subject to a "plantation mentality."  The idea that we looked on the government much as slaves in the south had looked on their plantation farmer owners.  Seemed ludicrous on it's face, but....

It is undeniable that slavery has existed in the world since recorded history began.  Every one of the societies throughout the ages has employed the concept of slavery:  the Romans, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Muslims...all of them.  But our history books suggest that WE are different. "Really?"...and, if so, "Why"?

In ancient times, slavery often had nothing to do with "ownership."  True, the Romans and Greeks did transfer title, but neither the Aztecs nor African tribes have any formal title for their slaves...it just was a result of losing a battle or war.  Losers became the slaves and winners became the owners or "masters."  America codified ownership, with formal documentation...until they were emancipated. But...why did America and most of the western world do away with slavery. Did it really disappear? Or did it just morph into another form under a different name?

After all, how could a system that has existed for so many years suddenly become anathema to the human race?  If it were a gradual thing, one could argue that it was a developing "something": perhaps moral awareness, perhaps a religious revelation, but whatever it was, it would logically be something that mankind came to over an extended period...but this apparent  elimination of slavery has come upon us suddenly in less than a century, eliminating a pattern of behavior that has been consistent and constant for ages.  Why now...and how?

I do not think it has disappeared at all.  I think that it exists all around us and that in fact, we may all be not only complicit in its preservation but be slaves ourselves.

Remember the second side of the Merriam-Webster definition...",,,completely subservient to a dominating influence."?  Let us try out some comparisons of the usual vision of slavery side-by-side with living in America today:

What happens when you disobey the orders of your slave master?  Punishment of various degrees, depending on how severe and how many previous transgressions, right?
What happens when you disobey the orders of the government?  Not much different, I would suggest.

You may argue that you get a jury trial.  Sometimes...but not as often as you think.  Most transgressions against government are punished by taking your "stuff," usually in the form of money but sometimes they just take you property...especially if they want it and you think you own it.  How, indeed, is it different?

You say "...but my elected officials made the decisions, and I agreed by electing them."  Oh, really?  Was that your intention...or is that just a mantra that the government throws back at you to explain that it is really either your fault or that you agreed to allow this control and this "taking" of your stuff or your freedom?  Isn't the "election" thing something that you have been indoctrinated into believing actually protects your freedoms"  I mean, how many of your freedoms have disappeared in your lifetime without your specific approval?  Remember that unfortunate "property rights" thing that has been taken?  How about wiretaps without a judicial warrant?  How about the right to have the implements necessary to defend yourself?  Think about it.  How has that "our elections protect our freedoms" mantra been working...other than to lower your blood pressure?

Some people that lived centuries ago made an agreement to be governed by others.  We were born into it and raised to see it as a good thing...something to cherish and not to question. Did we choose it?  Did YOU choose it?  If we are really created with unalienable rights from God, why does the government have such absolute control over our lives?  Why does not every generation have to pass again, ab initio, and approve, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?  Why are we encouraged to suffer indignities that our founding fathers saw fit to revolt against?  Sort of a loss of logic here, it seems.

Is there some fear on the part of those in power that some or all of the provisions might be seen by the majority of "citizens" as objectionable and the results as being enslaving?  You think?

Slavery is alive an well throughout the world.  In fact it is more extensive than ever before in human history.  And it is a natural existence, as proven by the history of the world...it has always been and it will always be, albeit defined differently for the exigencies of the moment.  Today, most of the "Slave Masters" have simply morphed into "Elected Officials" and "Government Representatives."  They have refined themselves into a multi-headed hydra that cannot be clearly identified, and thus not ever truly defeated or removed, so the slavery continues.

Those who are poor cannot chose to remove the power that feeds them, while those who's earned wealth is taken by the government are too few to be able to fight the taking.  It is the perfect form of slavery where, for the sake of narcissistic ego, the enslaved cannot even countenance the idea that they are, indeed, slaves in fact if not in name.  And so it is.

Health Care simplified (maybe)?

Why does the government always look to solve a problem by starting with the most complicated and controlling approach first (and often never moves on from there)? And that is assuming (a very big and IMHO false assumption) that it can accurately determine whether or not there actually is a problem.

Indulge me by joining in another look at Health care in America. The whole conversation is about two areas: costs and availability of coverage, right? For the sake of argument, supposing we separate the two for purposes of discussion.

Cost. Right now, the individual states control the cost of policies sold in their states...or, at least they have the power to control those rates. So...the federal plan that is going to cost us who knows how many trillion dollars does not really address or improve that factor, does it? Do we really think that federal bureaucrats will do a better job than state bureaucrats? I don't either. But...can we change the factors in a way that might (and I emphasize, might) improve costs? How about allowing cross-state-line sales of different health care insurance products? Instead of mandating a specific model of coverage, as states do now, why not mandate that different policies can be marketed with different scopes and levels of coverage and the consumer can select whatever suits his or her desires? Further, if you thought it would be helpful, research and find out what the profit margin is for Health Insurance Companies, come up with an average and mandate that all Health care Insurance Companies may not set rates that result in exceeding that margin. Adjust that number by inflation, provide for public auditing of compliance. Require that promotional and explanatory literature on the different Insurance policies highlight in bold print and plain English just what the differences are between policies, with emphasis on scope (types of things and illnesses covered AND NOT COVERED) and Coverage (amount of money available by type of service and lifetime of policy).

I think all of this, done at the STATE level, would result in lowest possible (knowing that this does not necessarily lead to an actual reduction in bills, just that the charges are not inflated) costs and allow a family to chose at least some coverage at a cost that they can afford.

Availability of Coverage. Again, let us presume that we want to extend coverage to all citizens. Why not just provide for reimbursement of costs of medical care to citizens who do not have coverage. All Doctors, Hospitals and Medical Laboratories have to do is document the person receiving coverage, why they were not covered by a policy (pre-existing condition, financially unable to afford coverage, etc.) verify that they were a citizen or a legal resident, and the government would cover the costs. There would be no reimbursement for treatment for illegal aliens or non-citizens. Also, these forms would also be required to be audited to prevent fraud.

This would, within a couple or 5 years provide us with a baseline for the costs of covering those who do not have any insurance. If the experience seemed to support it, perhaps a follow-up step would be to replace the reimbursement program for the Health care Industry with a subsidy for lower income families to enable them to buy an insurance policy, leaving the government directly responsible only for those with pre-existing conditions.

Such an approach would provide both more alternatives and more power of choice to the American citizen and family, keeping government control at a minimum while mandating government verification of industry, provider and end user truthfulness, as well as minimizing taxpayer costs.