How Is It Possible?
by Dr. Doug Cardell
One of the most common reader questions I receive goes something like this: "I've read most of your articles, and the evidence is indisputable. How is it possible that a lot of people still think socialism could work?" The answer is a bit complicated, but I can explain it. Many people have a misconception about formal logic. Consider this syllogism: A year has 365 days. This year, 2024, is a year. Therefore, this year has 365 days. The logic of this syllogism is perfectly correct, and the conclusion is logically sound, but it is wrong. The major premise that a year has 365 days is incorrect. Only three out of four years have 365 days; the fourth has 366, and 2024 is one of those. All deductions are based on initial premises. I was a math professor, and in mathematics, we call the starting points axioms. In algebra, one of these axioms is the associative axiom. It is often written as (x + y) + z = x + (y + z). Like all axioms, it is assumed to be true because it is considered self-evident from the Greek word meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' It is self-evident that the associative axiom is true. In plain English, it says, "In addition, grouping does not matter." If you have doubts, take the money out of your wallet and try rearranging it so you have more. Now, why do those who think socialism might be viable believe as they do? It's all based on their axioms. In non-mathematical terms, axioms are sometimes called other names, such as world views or fundamental beliefs. The socialist-leaning folks I have known were all fine people who wanted to do good. But they are exploited by politicians who crave power. Those favoring socialism have a worldview that doesn't match well with reality. They can't do the good they hope to because their worldview contradicts reality. While it varies from person to person, some general beliefs are: All people are good, but society and/or poor parenting corrupts them. Since society and bad parents are the problem, the government must control society and parents. If we treat people well, they will respond by treating us well. Minorities desperately need our help to survive. No religion, moral code, or government is better than any other. People will work hard without any motivation. The government can and should spend as much money as necessary to make the world perfect. All of these notions are demonstrably false. Millennia of evidence clearly prove that all people are not good. Left uncontrolled, many people will go beyond pursuing their legitimate self-interests and actively harm others to achieve their ends. Some will even escalate to substantial evil. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not lovely guys who would have turned out fine with better parenting; they were brutal, evil egomaniacs who would do anything to achieve their ambitions. Therefore, it is not society or parents that need to be controlled but those who would do harm. They are not the victims; they are the victim creators. I remember, as a kid of 12 or so, hearing about someone proposing that the US unilaterally disarm and laughing at what a dumb idea that was. I was small for my age and had been bullied quite a bit until I studied and mastered martial arts. It was obvious to me that bullies governed the USSR and that the only thing preventing them from attacking us was our formidable military presence. The belief that minorities require our help to succeed is condescending at best and actively harmful at worst. Any observer of human nature should know that constantly telling someone they need help tends to make them believe it and hinder their progress. For example, experiments have proven that students tend to fulfill the teacher's expectations. No evidence indicates that minorities need any more help to succeed than anyone else. It should also be apparent that some religions, moral codes, and belief systems are more advantageous to their adherents than others. Among nations, representative democracies have undoubtedly provided more rewards to their citizens than any other system. Migration patterns prove this conclusively. Virtually all migration is a one-way street, from less successful cultural and governmental systems to more successful ones. If those favoring socialism were correct, everyone would stay where they were since no place, culture, or government was superior to any other. A Gallup poll found that nearly ten percent of the people on Earth would migrate to the US if they could. That's because the US is better than where they are. Any parent will tell you that children will only do chores, study hard, or do their best with motivation. Any coach will tell you that the main asset to a coach is not their skill but their ability to motivate. Many of the best coaches were not great players but could inspire others to be great players. Finally, governments cannot spend unlimited money without severe economic consequences. The inflation of the Biden-Harris administration should be enough evidence for anyone. So, to answer the initial question, those who favor socialism do so because their axioms and worldviews are fantasies. Like the John Lennon song, they 'Imagine' a world not as it is but as they would like it to be. Failure to accurately perceive reality and react to it as it is is a recipe for failure. Every attempt to establish a socialist nation has proved this. None has ever lasted even one hundred years. Several of my previous articles have dealt with elements of this in greater detail. They are: Causes of Inflation Gov't Codependency Spontaneous Order? Economic Error No More Do-overs! The Socialist Religion Anti-Social Policy? The Dangers of Debt I hope this answers the question, but if not, feel free to expand on it in the comments below.
If you found this article stimulating, please share it with other folks who might enjoy it. And please share your thoughts below. Dr. Cardell would love to hear from you.
Responses