Saturday, June 9, 2012

Why socialism is not for me

Before I get to the meat of this entry, I figured I'd share an example of the issues with our government, here in the United States.  New York City's mayor has put forward a proposition that would limit sodas sold in restaurants and movie theaters to sixteen ounces.  I can agree with the idea behind this - that one of the major causes of childhood obesity is soda, and therefore we should limit the intake of these beverages to help curb the obesity epidemic.  What I find ironic about this proposed ban on large sodas, is that our federal government provides a corn subsidy to farmers.  This subsidy is the main contributor to the use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in most of our foods and beverages.  So, a city government may cause a limitation on something to address an issue caused by our federal government.

Our federal government talks a lot about the obesity epidemic.  Rather than pull the corn subsidies, and let the raising expenses in soda and other unhealthy foods balance the issue out, instead they propose health care changes, taxes on sodas, subsidizing gym memberships, or even having a "fat tax".  It would be great if the corn subsidy only applied to corn which was meant to be sold as, you know, corn.  Just like it would be great if raw fruits and vegetables that were meant to be sold in their natural form were subsidized so that these healthy foods were available for the poor.

However, because there is now an industry built on using HFCS all over the place, and that industry lobbies to ensure that those subsidies do not go away.  This is the problem with our government, and why I do not think that socialism is a good solution for our country's needs in the current state of things.  We have a mixture of plutocracy, theocracy, and aristocracy.  Any efforts to provide services to our citizens will be corrupted by one of this facets of our government.  Look at "Obamacare" as an example.  The healthcare bill accomplished some good things: people cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and insurance companies cannot discriminate based on gender are some great examples of this.  However, the fact that people MUST have medical insurance, even if they cannot afford it causes some serious issues.  The reason that this was put into the bill was because the insurances companies would not allow this bill to be passed without this provision.  The fact that our government sways more towards the interest of the corporations, and not to the people tells you something about it.  It tells you that the government will not regulate the corporations, and will bow to them.

Since I don't trust the government, I am largely in favor of a small, less powerful government.  I think that we should limit the government's ability to make these choices on our behalf, because they won't worry about our concerns or issues.  They will either look to their own best interests, their masters' best interests (corporations), or bow to the tyranny of the majority (and this is where we get the theocracy aspect).  I don't understand anyone who can trust governmental officials enough to think that socialism is an acceptable political outlook.

Maybe I'm just being cynical.  I'm open to debate / discussions about why I could possibly be wrong about this.

No comments:

Post a Comment