Dialectics: Capitalism and Socialism

No one society has achieved a perfect economic system. Economies fluctuate around the world. Different economic systems have been implemented until the collapse of an economy, calling for radical reform. The supremacy of different economic systems has been a heated topic of debate for centuries.

In ideal socialism, the government controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange, striving to eliminate class distinctions. But often, this is not the case. If the government is corrupt, socialism ends up almost like a dictatorship, where an elite group controls society. And society doesn't become egalitarian. Radical socialism is present in countries like Libya. When the wrong people get into power, the original ideals are not conformed to. But in countries like Denmark and Sweden, a rather democratic socialism is present, and public happiness surpasses almost every other countries. In addition, those countries have some of the greatest world economies.

Free market capitalism creates incentive amongst the people, but also creates great class divides. Usually the gap between the rich and the poor is diminished through taxes and certain laws, but with great enough class distinctions, economies quickly hit a recession. Exhibit A, the United States. But in response to that, the US also has the biggest national economy in the world. In capitalism, people don't have the interests of the greater whole in mind, but often the interests of the individual. But people also strive to invent and produce new ideas and technologies. One problem with this, as mentioned before, people disregard the interests of the greater society. So often externalities occur, where in order to maximize production efficiency companies will burden others with hidden costs. Take pollution, for example. A factory may keep poor production standards, and save money developing their products, but they may harm the environment, which other people would then have to take responsibility for.

In a socialist system, people still have incentives to work, as their overall input to society is valued. But there is a lot of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. But problems, like negative externalities, exist in much smaller proportions, since the government is in control of production and distribution.

I guess the reason that the world still has not found one perfect economic system is because there is NO one perfect system. What works best for one country is respective to the environment and conditions of the country. And for certain political systems to exist, the "adjacent possible" must also exist. Some countries may wish for a different economic system, but transitioning is hard. Or a corrupt leader is preventing it. If the infrastructure doesn't exist, socialism could be too difficult to implement. A balance of individual freedom and government control needs to be achieved, and compromises need to be made, and then only will there ever be a near-perfect economic system.

360 Degrees: Gaddafi Bailout

Roughly a week ago rumors spread that Muammar Gaddafi initiated a proposal that would end in him stepping down from power but leaving with pocketfuls of money, security for his family, and the right to not be persecuted. Rumors also speculate that these terms were rejected as Libyan rebels did not want an honorable resignation for an dishonorable man. But put to scale, Gaddafi is almost a 21st century Hitler of Libya, and when he has no concern for his people, and when he's slaughtering them at the slightest sign of resistance, this option may present itself as viable.

The actual terms of this proposal are very speculative; the proposal itself is only alleged. But if it were true, obviously the rebels wouldn't want their tyrannic leader who may have massacred their close friends and family to walk away with so much as a scratch. I would have the same opinion if I were in their positions.

But let's take the side of the major foreign nations trying to intervene in this. Sure, Gaddafi doesn't deserve justice. But I'm sure Gaddafi is scared out of his mind right now, with all these major foreign nations (U.S., France, Britain, Germany, Canada, etc.) demanding that he stand down. Saddam Hussein was executed after all. We have him in control. If we push for this deal, and persuade the rebels that this would be the best decision for their country, maybe the pros would outweigh the cons.

Gaddafi is still killing, and it's not going to stop anytime soon. If I asked someone if they could save the lives of a 1,000 people by letting one criminal go free, I'm sure they would answer yes in the blink of an eye. What does one life really matter to us? If he's abdicating his power, it will ensure an atrocity like this never happens again. We may be giving him free money (as part of the agreement), but think about all the money being dumped into international assistance. And now isn't exactly the greatest time for the U.S. be spending money in foreign countries. We have our own economy and our own people to worry about, wouldn't letting Gaddafi go free be the most judicious action?