In the post Socialism Is a Good Thing for America I expressed my opinion that young families should operate as a socialist group. In this group the idea is that everyone works for the good of the group. My thought today is "What happens when something goes wrong?".
Imagine this group of people working together for the good of the group and one decides not to participate. In the family construct, imagine one of the kids decides to rebel against all this work being forced on them and decides not to help the group. The work is all still there but now there is one less person for it to be spread over. The remainder of the group has to pick up the slack and produce to support the one that, even though they have the ability, doesn't want to contribute any effort. In other words, the good socialists have to support the bad socialists.
The earliest settlers in the United States had this problem. It was decided that everyone would work to produce the food needed through the winter and it would be stored in a common holding area to be shared by the whole group. You guessed it, some of the people in the group decided not to play along knowing they would be taken care of during the winter. The whole colony almost starved to death. Imagine, a socialist style system didn't work because some of the people in the group decided to take advantage of the work of others.
In our family unit we have the same problem. One of the kids is having all their needs taken care of but not contributing to their ability to the good of the group. All the benefits and none of the effort. I know how my parents would have handled it, a good talking to that would make it hard to sit down for a day or two. But in today's society, scolding a child in front of the wrong person could get you reported for child abuse.
Now imagine our socialist group is expanded to include the siblings of one or both of the parents and their children. To be fair, everyone's needs must be met to the same level. Will everyone in this group contribute to the same degree as everyone else after they see the first child not contributing to the group? Probably not. So we gain a few others that don't want to contribute based on their abilities, more bad socialists. At the same time that the needs of the group have increased due to the increased number of people included.
Some would think the solution would be to increase the size of the group. Why not expand the group to include your neighbors, maybe the whole neighborhood where you live. Think this would help? How about expanding it to include the city or town you live in. No matter how small the town, there will be some that don't want to contribute but are welcome to have their needs met by the work of others. By expanding the group further the group gains more bad socialists.
Anyone that believes that socialism will cure all our problems is naïve at best. The terms "stupid", "ignorant" and "asinine" also come to mind. In a large socialist organization, the one's in charge will either arrange to reeducate or eliminate those that don't want to contribute. Maybe you think no one will be in charge in your socialist group, think again. Someone will always be in charge they just have a different title than President, Senator, or Representative. Usually they will not have the constraints to deal with dissent our leaders today have.
Socialism is sold as a utopia in which everything is free. Nothing happens free, someone has to pay for it either with money or with sweat. When you hear liberals speaking of free health care or free college education ask yourself where it comes from. Historically health care and a college education have not been free, so how can someone all of a sudden wave a pen across a few pages of paper and make it free? Ask yourself "Does this make sense?" or "Why wasn't this done before?".
In the socialist construct, the good socialists working in health care and education contribute to the socialist society by their work in health care and education. Although a necessary part of society, it doesn't add to the truly basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. These good socialists also have to be supported in their basic needs by the remainder of the group. It's the same in a capitalists society with one major difference. In the event of a shortage of basic necessities, those working in areas not supporting the basic needs are forced to pay more for their necessities rewarding those providing what is needed. In the capitalists society if there is a food shortage, the farmer may decide not to sell all his crop to make sure his family has food. If there is a housing shortage and a builder needs a house, a house can be built. In the fairness of a socialists society the whole group suffers equally in the event of a shortage.
Margaret Thatcher, who was the Prime Minister of Britain while Reagan was President, once made the statement:
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
What happens is the socialist leaders promise so much, like free health care and a free college education, they use up all the available money in the group. The bad socialists in the group act as a burden on the whole group, taking away from the productive capacity of the whole group. With these bad socialists, the group doesn't generate enough income to support either the basic needs of the group or the promises of the leadership. The system fails, every time.