Archive for July, 2008

Computer Science Confirms Socialism’s Failure

July 11, 2008

Is Socialism a success story?  If we assume that Socialism has been successful because it has been so widely adopted then we would respond “affirmative”.  However if we look further and ask whether Socialism has succeeded in bringing real success to the majority of the citizens under its rule then we would be obligated to respond “negative”.  It is this “negative” response that Computer Science confirms appropriate.

Computer Science predates computers and includes that body of knowledge and proof that establishes what can be computed by algorithms, i.e. formal procedures of calculation that can be automated. 

A famous theorem of computer science is Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which revealed the fact that Truth can’t completely be established by finite axiomatic systems of proof.  Only something infinite like the human mind lifted above the mortal limits of limited memory recall can establish all Truth.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem relates to Socialism because Socialism is an attempt to remedy all social ills by an inherently finite system of rules.  One might make the mistake of assuming that all systems of law would fall under the same limitation, but I’ll get to that later.  Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem proves that Socialism’s attempts to solve society’s problems will never succeed completely. Furthermore as time passes and laws are engineered to solve dilemmas more relevant to a former time period, the incompleteness of a system of laws under Socialism continues to grow.  Socialistic systems of law thus prove themselves more inadequate with time.   Socialism is inherently a context free language rather than a context sensitive one.  Like the Finite State machine of computer science theory, its realm of discourse never fits all real life situations equally well.  You can’t socially engineer away one man’s failures without such efforts working towards the failures of others.  Likewise if everyone were already perfect such efforts would obviously be in vain.  Even if everyone were identical in both personality and circumstance, Socialism would still be limited by its assumption that men can’t think independently and therefore rule themselves under the general abstraction framework of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is an abstract framework concretely realized by individuals seeking to uphold each others rights.  It’s antithesis, Socialism, is an abstract framework concretely implemented by the imposition of specific laws for specific circumstances assuming that individuals are inherently incapable of ruling themselves and need truth specifically defined for them.  If Socialisms laws were abstract and general, they wouldn’t be socialistic and would contradict their framework.

Socialism’s laws by their specificity lose the flexibility that laws under the Rule of Law retain by their natural abstractness.  Laws under the Rule of Law retain their abstract generality by trusting the individual and their capacity to discover truth.  Socialism, by not relying on the intelligence of man, except perhaps for a brief snapshot in time of its planners, is under the same limitations as set forth by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem being itself an attempt at establishing all truth by a finite system of axiomatic principles. 

Socialism tries to fix men’s failures by constantly rewriting itself.  As Ayn Rand once stated, socialists are always promising a better world with their next five year plan when in reality things are only getting worse and better in new ways. In contrasts, the Rule of Law doesn’t make this wrong assumption that a situation where some men fail and others succeed necessitates changing the law (until all “succeed”).

Dead Capital

July 10, 2008

Dead Capital is like having a bent longbow stuck in a vise.  It can’t unbend and release its potential energy.  Since the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism has succeeded in the West but failed elsewhere (e.g. Latin America) due to dead Capital.  Now even the West is threatened with the prospect of dead Capital and therefore death to the heart of Capitalism itself.  The cause is the collective effect of the death blows dealt by Socialists (e.g. liberal left-wing Democrats) to our financial and economic system with increasingly more regulations that put our businesses’ Capital in a vise.  The recent U.S. mortgage crisis has opened the floodgates for the left-wing (Socialist) liberals in U.S. government to accelerate this destructive trend.

The problem of dead Capital is why giving international aid to underdeveloped, struggling (e.g. Third World) countries is vain in the long run.  It will never truly solve their economic problems.  These countries are already sitting on mountains of unharnessed wealth that could make them prosperous.  The remedy is ridiculously simple.  Reestablish property ownership rights and liberate the Capital from the political vises that restrain their free use and ability to be converted from potential earning power to actual earning power.  This is difficult or impossible under oppressive governments and regimes.

Bibliography: “The Mystery of Capital, Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else” by Hernando De Soto, copyright 2000, published by Basic Books.

The “Freedom” That Overshadowing Looms

July 6, 2008

Certainly before, but increasingly since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the following quote, the phrase “Freedom from Want” has taken on a religious air, as if it were the Holy Grail, or sacred calling of all socialist minded idealists.  Here is that quote:

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.  The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.  The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.  The third is freedom from want — everywhere in the world.  The fourth is freedom from fear — anywhere in the world.

While the world was undergoing many economic and political hardships when this statement was made by this former U.S. president, it contains the signature theme of socialism, the precursor to brutal communism that has spread like cancer amidst our modern society.  Like on the that public t.v. show “Sesame Street”, “One of these things is not like the other”.  Freedom from want isn’t a freedom that can be given too freely without enslaving its recipient in the bonds of idolatry and the evils of idleness and covetousness.  History has proven that those provided for at the unwilling expense of others are all too eager to impose more unwilling provisions for themselves by bleeding others of their earning powers through state taxes on their behalf. 

While Socialism may equalize everyone into poverty it fails to acknowledge that one can attain unto far greater wealth, real and intangible, regardless of circumstances when one is freed from the constraints of an economy invaded by Socialism.  They demonize the rich and emphasize the wide disparity of wealth between the rich and poor in free societies, but fail to mention that everyone is poor under Socialism (except elite socialist party members).  They fail to mention that in redistributing wealth under Socialism, history has repeatedly shown that Socialism forms its own artificial class system.  Instead of a wide continuous spectrum of wealth from the poor to the rich in a free society, Socialism imposes a more rigid caste of a majority of poor and a minority of richer (the more priviledged, elite socialist members). 

The Socialist loses sight of everything precious when they focus on their idealistic ends and rationalize the means to get them.  If in attaining freedom from want we sacrifice more precious freedoms, then such efforts are ultimately done in vain, being counter-productive and leading to more stagnant future prospects.  As the English novelist and playwright W. Somerset Maugham stated:

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.

Surely we should have compassion on our fellow man, but that is a job for the church and not the state.  If taxes are to be apportioned for church charities as recent presidential candidate Obama has suggested, then the state has assumed the role of the church and is taxing us in the name of the Lord.  “Kirchensteuer” and other tithings assumed by the government to collect aren’t new to Europe, but why burden Lady Liberty with Old World fashions?