Socialist Experiment

[Icymudpuppy]

Subject: Socialism

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged, and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged, and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so, they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that

[sevin]

That is fucking awesome. I gotta remember that one.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/60/rtdllg.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=3959)

[Agent CSL]

Did this actually happen? I assume it's just a hypothetical situation created for the purpose of putting socialism into perspective, but if this actually happened AWESOME.

[ChaosControl]

It was fake, someone linked off of snopes. Still it does show he truth of the issue nonetheless.

[Elwar]

Considering he said that nobody would fail and he gave them an F, then this is a made up story.

[slothman]

Socialism isn't like that though.
Rich people still get to keep most of their money.
It's more like an 'A+' student going to an 'A' person.
Similarly an 'F' person only goes up to a 'D'.
They also wouldn't just work less for that reason.

[Original_Intent]

Socialism isn't like that though.
Rich people still get to keep most of their money.
It's more like an 'A+' student going to an 'A' person.
Similarly an 'F' person only goes up to a 'D'.
They also wouldn't just work less for that reason.

It all depends on the degree of socialism. Sure it might work the way you say (where producers keep "most" of what they produce) but once the socialist principle is established, the recipients of government largesse become more demanding as to what they are "entitled" to. Resentment grows among the productive class.

Socialism is not charity, it is plunder. Pretty soon everyone is fighting for a piece of the plunder pie, and no one is actually producing any more.

In your above example, should the A+ student be lowered to an A and the F student be raised to a D? of course not!

[Objectivist]

Here's a favorite argument of mine, see how it works out in your mind and then try it on someone. Remember there is no logical fallacy if we all agree that stealing is immoral. This is from another forum that I posted some time ago.......


Liberal Progressive Democrats, Ignorant or Immoral?
After the period of time I've been here I've come to one of two conclusions, It's what I do, find denominators. In the forums I've visited I have found LPDs stating they are for government programs to help those that are less fortunate, which is admirable if it is true. I think most of us step up to the plate as Americans when our fellow man is in dire straits. Some here will suggest that only 'they' are on the side of good.

Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved? Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help? You do know that you can start your own charity rather simply by visiting a CPA and filing out some paperwork?

SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.

I'm only left with two conclusions on the issue of government assistance in the realm of welfare or social spending programs, either LPDs are ignorant or immoral. Which is it? Because I've laid out the options that are available to you with todays technology and I cannot come up with another option at the base. Unless you think you are more ignorant than the politicians you elected as the leaders of your group? I wouldn't guess that for most LPD that I've run into, there are some though.

.........I can apply this to any number of LPD programs and seeing that 69 million people voted for BO, why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system? Blue Cross has 100 million customers and many would switch to the BO Plan if it looked good, wouldn't they?

Note again I asked a question about being ignorant or immoral, not a statement.

[Objectivist]

Great post by the way!:cool:

[dannno]

Seems like in real life the F students get a D and the A students get a C+ due to government inefficiency.

Huge net loss in productivity and overall well-being.

[Objectivist]

Seems like in real life the F students get a D and the A students get a C+ due to government inefficiency.

Huge net loss in productivity and overall well-being.

Schools operate with this philosophy already. A teacher will take two average children and team them with one bright one and one idiot, to work on a project as a socialized group that shares the grade. Now that hamstrings the bright child and could keep their GPA lower and in fact could keep them from certain higher learning opportunities.

[nate895]

Schools operate with this philosophy already. A teacher will take two average children and team them with one bright one and one idiot, to work on a project as a socialized group that shares the grade. Now that hamstrings the bright child and could keep their GPA lower and in fact could keep them from certain higher learning opportunities.

At the same time, however, that is real life. Most people work in groups to accomplish tasks because most tasks can be achieved more efficiently working as a group, if they can be accomplished individually at all. The dynamics of working in a group generally happen in this manner in my experience: The bright student (myself) takes charge of the group immediately, and gets to know the task at hand, and assigns duties along with penalties for failure based off of the other students' abilities. This is how many workplaces function, and will function, it is just much better in that system because there can also be rewards for success (bonuses) as opposed to merely penalties for failure (most teachers allow you to fail or lower a student's grade if they won't participate).

[virgil47]

nate895, while what you say is true in some instances it is not always true. In a truly socialist environment the best and brightest are not usually in charge. The individual with the best political connections are most always in charge and it is they who reap the benefits of the labor of those brighter than themselves. Most if not all of those that desire a socialist form of government automatically assume that it is they who will be in charge. Unfortunately for them they are almost always incorrect as it turns out that he with the most power (guns) ends up making the rules. This why I find it so humorous when I read about Soros or Gates pushing socialist ideas. Folks like them are known as useful idiots are rapidly disposed of after their usefulness has ended.

[nate895]

nate895, while what you say is true in some instances it is not always true. In a truly socialist environment the best and brightest are not usually in charge. The individual with the best political connections are most always in charge and it is they who reap the benefits of the labor of those brighter than themselves. Most if not all of those that desire a socialist form of government automatically assume that it is they who will be in charge. Unfortunately for them they are almost always incorrect as it turns out that he with the most power (guns) ends up making the rules. This why I find it so humorous when I read about Soros or Gates pushing socialist ideas. Folks like them are known as useful idiots are rapidly disposed of after their usefulness has ended.

I know, that is why socialism doesn't work, but to say getting together in a group to accomplish a task is a bad idea is just not true. The free market is only there to let you know where you can best serve your fellow man because no one has perfect information about mass society. You have near perfect information in a group of four or five people. That is why a family functions properly, it is socialist, but the head has perfect or near perfect information of economic needs, that simply can't happen beyond a family or group-sized unit.

[Objectivist]

At the same time, however, that is real life. Most people work in groups to accomplish tasks because most tasks can be achieved more efficiently working as a group, if they can be accomplished individually at all. The dynamics of working in a group generally happen in this manner in my experience: The bright student (myself) takes charge of the group immediately, and gets to know the task at hand, and assigns duties along with penalties for failure based off of the other students' abilities. This is how many workplaces function, and will function, it is just much better in that system because there can also be rewards for success (bonuses) as opposed to merely penalties for failure (most teachers allow you to fail or lower a student's grade if they won't participate).

It rewards failure! The bright child could handle the work load solo, so it is hampering their ability.

[nate895]

It rewards failure! The bright child could handle the work load solo, so it is hampering their ability.

Not in my experience for many projects. Sometimes, that is the case, but the others can still do it, it's not like they are incapable nitwits. There are very few people who are truly dumb enough to not get As in school, it is just that most of us are too lazy to put in the effort required to do so.

[Objectivist]

Not in my experience for many projects. Sometimes, that is the case, but the others can still do it, it's not like they are incapable nitwits. There are very few people who are truly dumb enough to not get As in school, it is just that most of us are too lazy to put in the effort required to do so.

Todays four year state college degree is equivalent to a 1950 high school diploma.

[axiomata]

A history lesson on this particular socialist experiment. It is actually older than most of us.

In the '40s and '50s one of the leading proponents of libertarianism in the US was a Christian-libertarian group called the Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals or Spiritual Mobilization. "Beginning in 1949, the Christ-centered free market ideals of Spiritual Mobilization reached nearly fifty thousand pastors and ministers via the organization's publication, Faith and Freedom. With the rhetorical flare of such libertarian luminaries as the Congregationalist minister Edmund A. Opitz, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and the anarchist Murray Rothbard, Faith and Freedom moved many clergymen to embrace its anti-tax, non-interventionist, anti-statist economic model." They also put out a radio program called The Freedom Story where this story, likely a simple and effective thought experiment and not historically based, was first broadcast.

The More You Know (TM)

[axiomata]

In my reading about this org they had this checklist that they went through for each government program or candidate that I thought I should share:

Does it (the program, platform, or act) encourage the Christian principal of love or the collectivist principal of compulsion?
If it proposes to take the property or income of some for the special benefit or use of others, does it violate the Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal"?
Is it necessary to use compulsion of political means in this instance, or could the ends be accomplished by Christian cooperation and non-political voluntary associations?