Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
bonzobanana said:
This article is about socialism as an economic system and political philosophy. For socialism specifically defined as a stage of development in Marxist theory, see Socialism (Marxism). For the concept where the state promotes the social and economic well-being of its citizens sometimes mistaken with socialism, see Welfare state.
|
I'd like to separately address this. Socialism did not start with Karl Marx, and it is not exclusive to Marxian theory. As for the Welfare-warfare state, F.A. Hayek - once a Democratic Socialist who converted to Classical Liberalism - provides a great explanation of how Democratic socialism incrementally progresses into tyranny, as the state demands more and more control over people's lives, because one's economic freedoms are intimately entangled with one's social freedoms. He explains the concept of collectivism vs. individualism, and how Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism are all rooted in the belief that individuals do not have rights, but collectives do, and it is illegitimate to have such systems encompass a liberal society (a rights-based society.)
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. (Condensed Version)
|
This is untrue as well: socialism just takes different rights into account. It says that his right to basic housing and basic health care supercedes her right to own a third Mercedes Benz: the money that would have gone to the Benz goes to care for the other person.
It is merely the triumph of economic rights over property rights. At least in its more democratic form.
|
Those aren't natural rights. They might possibly be contractual obligations, but it would have to be a real contract and not the inconsistent concept of the "social contract." This is of course if we are assuming a deontological ethics position. Most socialists assume consequentialist ethics, and don't need to justify their actions with the concepts of rights or obligations. Which makes them illiberal.
