The OP is confused, it asks one question and then provides examples of a different question.
Socialism is not public education or public roads but government ownership of the means of production. Socialism does not work because it provides no way to provide information by ways of prices and no easy way to provide motivation to workers. A very clear example of this is agricultural collectivization. At the beginning of the last century the theory was that large farms such as in the US midwest were inherently more efficient than small family farms because of the economies of scale and the returns to mechanization. Thus small farms were consolidated into large collective farms and the farmers were assigned to work in those. The problem was that since farming is hard work and the farmers were not given any of the profits, the farmers slacked off. Because of this agricultural production plummeted. In order to motivate the farmers to work harder the government had to assign people to watch over them to make sure they were working hard. Thus the farmers lost all of their freedom and were subject to draconian punishments. If you look at the history of socialism, this repeats in every industry it is tried in.
The fallacy at the heart of the examples in the OP is that it assumes that if the government does not do something it does not get done. Schools existed for thousands of years before public schools started. When government takes over an industry such as education it tends to crowd out other competitors because it is harder to compete on price. Monopolies still act like monopolies even when the government runs them. The lack of competition tends to mean high prices and low quality. In the US the parts of the country where public schools face private competition schools are usually good to very good. In low income parts of the country where private schools are unaffordable to most the school systems tend to be poor. The quality of public education is very dependent on the quality of the government administering them. This is why private school attendance is highest in developing countries which generally have poor quality of governance. However, even in high quality governance places such as Sweden, private education tends to be of higher quality.
Highways and roads are a totally different case, it is much easier for them to be public due to eminent domain rights and how hard it has been historically to collect tolls efficiently.
I think clarity is needed regarding how you are using the terms, socialism, capitalism, and freedom. Economic freedom is just as important as other freedoms and it seems like in your examples (roads, schools, medicine, and housing) the economics of the fact pattern isn’t addressed.
Your examples rely on a type of ‘greater good’ rubric. Where if everyone contributes then there is greater resources for all when measured as a whole. Roads are better overall, a better educated populace is better overall, a healthy populace is better overall, etc. But this greater good isn’t uniformly distributed. To achieve this greater good, there are some that are worse off, and some that are better off, at least in terms of economic freedom.
In my view, freedom doesn’t mean the greater good for everyone. Freedom is measured at the individual level, and it doesn’t even necessarily mean being better off there either, it’s often times independent of the outcome.
Short answer: let’s look at just one example that you brought up in your OP, namely public schools. We have a public school system where everything is owned and operated by the government in most places. (In some, there’s been welcome movement towards school choice involving in charters, vouchers, and other options. Nonetheless, the vast majority of America’s school-going children are stuck in public schools.)
Do children like going to public school? No, not in most cases. Just read an old Calvin and Hobbes book or watch The Simpsons or Bob’s Burgers to get an accurate look at how most kids feel about going to a public school.
And why should kids feel any differently about it? They are forced to wake up early in the morning, when in many cases they would be healthier if they could sleep longer. Many ride on cramped, unpleasant buses. They get ushered into ugly, unpleasant buildings. They are forced to sit in a certain room for a certain length of time, then forced to march to a different room at a different time, and so forth through the school day. They spend much of the day on monotonous, repetitive exercises, studying topics that they mostly don’t care about. Many endure bullying. Meanwhile, “school resource officers” prowl the hallways with guns and truncheons and handcuffs prominently displayed, an implicit warning about what will happen to students who don’t obey the system. Violence sometimes occurs.
How can public schools not be seen as an attack on freedom?
ITR champion and anyone else who doesn’t like public schools:
I think universal education is vital for a democracy. If the people are to rule, the people have to have a clue. Please show me that you could do this more effectively with only private schools.
It requires a massive taxation regime that takes a lot of money from a lot of people.
Up next: How does slavery contravene freedom?
The slaves don’t have to worry about where their food and shelter will come from. They don’t have to worry about losing their job to competition. They just have to provide a large percentage of their output and that will all be taken care of for them.
Agreed. Public roads mean I am forced to pay for those roads, whether I want to or not, whether I’m going to use them or not, whether I think it’s worth it to build them or not. I happen to think it is worth it, but if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be free to opt out.
The OP uses the words “a freer society”; but many, especially those who say that “socialism contravenes freedom,” think of freedom in more individual terms.
Sure they do, but are they right? Freedom also means having the chance to improve ones circumstances. If you are born into a homeless family there are currently social welfare measures that can provide a place to live, food and education. That education can be applied with work ethic to improve a person’s circumstances. How can that be more individual of a term?
You have no freedom if born into a poor family with no social structure to support you.
And private schools don’t make kids get up early? They don’t make kids study things in which they’re not interested? They don’t make kids go from room to room? They don’t have buses and security guards and discipline?
Sounds like your gripe is with *collective *education, not public education.
Just to toss out a few ideas. Not all of these would fix the public school problem by itself, but a combination would certainly reduce the suffering caused by public schools.
[ul]
[li]Replace public schools with charter schools.[/li][li]Replace public schools with vouchers for private school tuition.[/li][li]Replace public schools with home-schooling.[/li][li]Replace public schools with in-home tutoring.[/li][li]Replace public schools with online education.[/li][li]Revive apprenticeships. If a kid reaches age 16 and knows that he won’t benefit from any more algebra or Shakespeare, let him spend a year or two working with a local auto mechanic or plumber and getting useful skills.[/li][li]Bulldoze ugly, overpriced school buildings. Go back to having kids take classes in log cabins.[/li][li]Have kids spend less time indoors and more time outdoors.[/li][/ul]
There was a recent Vox article - wish I could find it again - that pointed out that capitalism and socialism need each other to thrive. Socialism can’t succeed without capitalism serving as the economic engine to propel it forward, and capitalism is too dangerous without a social net to catch people who are on tough luck.
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada, China, France, and numerous other countries demonstrate that this is just a mindless regurgitation of a right-wing talking point. Now you’ll want to say these aren’t real examples of socialism, and you will refine your definition that conveniently specifies that the things that didn’t fail are not socialism. Bring that No True Scotsman argument, we know it’s all you’ve got.
Sounds like you’re equating freedom with resources. If you’re born into a poor family with no social structure to support you, you have no resources.
So now I’m thinking there are two kinds of “freedom,” and that some people have one kind in mind and some have the other, so they end up talking past each other when they talk about freedom:
The “freedom” that has to do with what you’re able to do, vs. the “freedom” that has to do with what you’re allowed to do. Under one way of thinking, the more resources and opportunities you have, the freer you are. Under the other way of thinking, the less you’re required to do or forbidden from doing, the freer you are.
Ok, fair enough. The catch is since you have neighbors in a society surely their freedoms will affect your utopia of freedom at some point.
If you feel you should be able to do whatever you want on your 10 acres of land, there should be no bitching when a industrial private pig farm shows up next door citing their freedom.
Or perhaps that’s what this is really about. I have been to Tea Party meetings in the Twin Cities. What I saw was elderly white educated men with means who resent taxation and any limits on anything they want to do and couch thier beliefs in cherry picked founding fathers quotes.
In other news, Ayn Rand is popular with young adults.
Could be—although it’d be fairer to use the word “complete” consistently (either “freedom is the absence of obligation” or “complete freedom is the complete absence of obligation”).
But I think the main point is that “freedom” can mean different things, both to different people and to the same people in different contexts.
Try this: “Freedom is the opposite of ____________.” How would you fill in the blank?
I might say that freedom is the opposite of slavery, or of captivity, or of tyranny, or of responsibility, or of restraint, or of limitation, or various other things.