Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Socialism definition is – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Social programs are necessary to help the disadvantaged. However, we must be careful as too much will suppress incentive, extinguish dreams, and quells freedom. Interesting that socialists never talk about the importance of liberty. A strong America is not forced to choose. We can have both freedom and the ability to help those who can’t fend for themselves.
The Socialist idea of government giving us all we need is on the surface attractive to some, especially the underprivileged. There is also a notion that Socialism provides equal distribution of goods and money which also seems fair and just at first glance. The reality is, however, quite different.
With Socialism we lose our freedom. We lose the freedom to dream big dreams and the freedom to work hard to achieve those dreams. We don’t determine our fate, the socialist state determines who wins and who loses. Yes, the government determines who can go to college, controls what crops farmers grow, chooses our doctor and tells us how much money we will receive. In a nut shell we lose our freedom. It is telling that we never hear a socialist politician emphasize the importance of individual freedom. Individual freedom does not exist in a socialist state. Unfortunately, Socialism is a one Way Street, once entrenched it is difficult to impossible to change.
Please let’s not give up the American dream. Let’s support a free Capitalistic system that embraces individual freedom and inspires initiative and innovation. But Capitalism does not mean we should forget about those who are struggling. Unbridled capitalism that ignores those who are struggling is cruel and will not survive. I feel it is critical to help those less fortunate and provide opportunity for all. It is important on a humanitarian basis alone, but even if you are callus without compassion it is in your best interest to help the poor. Leaving a mass of people behind without a chance for advancement will eventually lead to retaliation. Look at Venezuela. Pre Chavez Venezuela was considered to be one of the riches countries in Latin America, but in reality there were millions who were left behind. I use to lecture to the doctors in Caracas. The host doctors would drive me to the beach so I could surf and on the way we would pass miles of poor people living in the dirt. Chavez exploited the masses of poor people to vilify the rich and establish Socialism. In almost every case ignored masses of poor people is what allowed Socialism to take hold.
I believe the best way to help the underprivileged by giving a hand up, not just a handout. Handouts should be a temporary measure, as long term handouts leads to dependency and loss of self-esteem. The real answer is education and job opportunity. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Yes there are the disabled who require ongoing support, but the majority of our underprivileged can be successful if given a chance.