Firstly, I don't think it's very constructive to label them socialists. I'd call them idealists. I'm an idealist too, but just with a more pragmatic approach, without conceding my values for some half-arsed goal.
It's normal for the youth to be inclined to the left. They like this idea that life shouldn't be such a struggle, that those higher than us shouldn't have it all for themselves. Somehow, they believe that they are exploiting us, and that we are losing out from them. We have this culture of disdain against our bosses and jealousy of the suppliers of essential goods. The idea that the higher are exploiting the lower is nonsense: the world is not zero-sum. There does not necessarily need to be losers if there are winners, that fallacious idea was shed long ago. Trades are mutually beneficial, otherwise the parties involved would not agree.
"Do not hold the delusion that your advancement is accomplished by crushing others." ? Marcus Tullius Cicero
The redistribution of wealth is appealing to many, but under simple economic arguments, the leftist argument no longer holds up. It destroys the necessary incentives that lead to the efficient allocation of resources envisioned by classical economists. When the rich and resourceful are taxed disproportionately by a progressive tax system, the incentive for the rich to provide and supply investment for people is reduced. Their earnings and ventures are eaten away by government. It is best to let them do what they do best: to invest in growing firms, and consequently providing jobs for workers.
Another problem with leftist economics is that despite it's vision to protect the poor, every policy designed by leftists directly hurts the poor, or inhibits their potential to transcend from rags to riches via fair opportunity. The illusion that the government tries to purport with ideas such as the minimum wage merely masks the "rags" from the poor. By simple logical principles, a minimum wage will stop unskilled workers from getting jobs. If a worker's unskilled labour is valued at $5/hr, and both parties agree, why should the government stop this trade? Minimum wage prevents the pairing of two individuals who would benefit from mutual benefits, and for no good reason! Other examples would be the taxing the rich, as explained above, would reduce investment capital, which means less jobs in the aggregate economy are available for workers. Or, even social welfare: the poor become dependent and there is simply no incentive to drive poor people to contribute to society.
The leftist belief destroys fair opportunities in exchange for "fair outcomes." Fair meaning equal of course, but equal to what? Person A might be equal to Person B, who might be equal to Person C, but what amount do all these people receive? Certainly not as much as the average wage in a free-market society. The incentives in a free-market society are the driving force for an efficient organisation of resources. The allocation of resources under a free-market rewards those who invest time and effort into innovation and labour. Would you pick fair opportunity, or fair outcome?
One concern of the youth of today is the lack of attention to civil liberties. It is an unfortunate case that the left tend to be the champions of social freedoms, and by default, the youth become indoctrinated in the left. People automatically dismiss the importance of economic freedom because they think: what would politicians know about freedom if they don't even care about rudimentary social freedoms such as the right to gay marriage? I mean, what does it matter if two people consent to a gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, so why are we banning it?
However, there is a group that responds to both economic and social freedoms. They are called free-market libertarians, and they believe in both social freedom and economic freedom.
Home
Help
Search
Login
