Socialism 101 Part 8

It follows directly from socialism’s fundamental moral and political premise, which is that the individual does not exist as an end in himself, but as a means to the ends of “Society.”

Private slave owners were motivated to treat their slaves with at least the same consideration they gave to their livestock, and to see to it that their overseers acted with the same consideration. But under socialism, the slaves are “public property”—the property of the state. Those who have charge of the slaves, therefore, have no personal economic interest in their lives or well-being. Since they are not owners of the slaves, they will not derive any personal material benefit if the slaves are alive to work in the future, nor suffer any personal material loss if the slaves are not alive to work in the future.

Government ownership does not give the alleged citizen-owner the psychological security that the possession of capital gives to a capitalist. Because, unlike the capitalist, he cannot sell his share in a government enterprise. Nor—except in the most unusual cases—does he receive dividends on his share.

The citizen’s share in government enterprises does him no good whatever. The fact that the enterprise is government owned merely means that it is operated without benefit of profit-and-loss incentives and the freedoms of individual initiative and competition. The result is almost always gross inefficiency, high costs, poor service, and low quality of products. (That’s exactly what Obamacare will be.)

Source: Capitalism by George Reisman