Something to write, which evolved in plenty to write about

Berkeley, February 23, 2020 00:08 AM At home, of course.

I am getting back to the habit of writing also in my blog about my daily life, as it was the purpose of it.

Of course I also invest some thought on topics that attract my attention, or which require a bit of deep analysis.

While I read the newspaper, in a print version, almost on a daily basis, particularly the opinion section of the Wallstreet Journal and the New York Times. I might not get that involved on making political analysis here. By pure concept, evidence from news from some countries, and my own thought that I can further elaborate I do not think that socialism is a good systems. As a GSI, lecturer or grader, or as a student as as well, I do not think that the student with the highest grades would have to give part of his grade to the student with the lowest grades. He or she can help the student with lower grades if he or she is willing to do it, but there should not be a regulation for doing so. Perhaps the student in the average grade or in the higher grades or even the lower grades is content with them, a case that is likely to be more true for the average and higher grades. In some sense of class community virtues transcend the grade. A good leading instructor not is able to create the love for studying, the seek of curiosity, and so the active interaction for asking questions, completing assignment, succeeding on tests, and the good environment between student to learn from each other. Of course there are always unique cases, but my point is that yes, laws are important, such as deadlines, laws against plagiarism, attendance in many cases, and so on. But no one do things just motivated on laws. The need of the leader or the good instructor, or the good president is a key aspect.

With this I am making an analogy to my thoughts about socialism. While depending the leader, it might be a good thing for a country for a period of time, for example, and in my opinion, Rafael Correa was a very good leader and very good for the country at that moment in time. He was, however, more a progressive leader than a socialist trying to control everything through the government, though he did that in part. It might have been needed because the governmental institutions in Ecuador, needed to be improved at that time.

It is true that a country could advance only with a clear constitution and clear laws. With efficient institutions, with transparency and enforcement of regulation. So what is the difference then between socialism and a so called free society?

Plenty of discussion comes, in my very shallow, random, and unexpected analysis, which I started just to the seek of writing something in my blog. And paradoxically, I was saying that I was introducing a thought on what I will usually cover, and not cover on my blog. And I was about to say that I was not going to cover that much of politics, but I actually, is a topic that I do care, so it I ended up trying to position my views.

Well, my thoughts against socialism, is that I do not believe on the government as a big brother, or paternalistic father, creating problems for justifying its applications. I do not believe that individuals can be seen as a large mass, each person has his own problems, his own needs, his own views, missions, etc, and nothing is free.

I think that free education is fake, as it harms the independence of thought. Universities are centers of thought which have been very critical in the advancement of societies. I know or assume that actually socialism would have evolved from the university classrooms. But I made my point about the distribution of freedom above, which can apply for distribution of wealth or more.

At the end, why money matters that much? It is about ones decision is just want to make money, or rather being active doing good works, for which more than surely a good monetary remuneration come with it. But the principle was not money itself, but the good works. A capitalist society have the right to pay a fair wage to its employees etc. It is surely that if an individual does not do good works does not advance in life. The individual if created a company based on good values is likely that the business will continue. Wicked things come to light in not more than oneself generation. I think that good things are the ones that last longer.

If someone just made use of his inheritance without skills and without values will lose it. I know I cannot mix things but there is a clear reason for the Catholic Church to rebuild its disciples in every generation, and not passing from father to son.

Power cannot be centralized. Business, hopefully neither. This argument is getting a bit stupid now, as I went off topic above, but I believe is a good virtue to be detached of the possessions from one generations to another, and yet being able to produce plenty of good fruits in oneself generation.

Each individual has the right to choose to either study or any other activity would try to do it. Though education is a wonderful goal, from one generation to another. That is a great inheritance, as it is effort, discipline, faith, and values. Each individual has the right to fail, make mistakes, which hopefully would not happen that often, and finally undertake in what he finds out that is good for society.

Socialism trying to provide free education is fake. It just creates a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. It does not promote autonomy of thought of the universities. I believe that in a free society socialism can exist, but the other way around is not true. Free speech, religion freedom, freedom of thought and more does not exists on a socialist society as only the government would have the right to determine what is right to the so called its people.

Governments cannot take all the control on individual decisions, though of course we need laws and honor codes to be able to coexist. Again the simple classroom example.

Abortion, population control, and even contraceptives, is not necessarily a socialist thing, but it is more linked to it and its control of people, than rather with the promotion of freedom and of course the right of life. No human law can rule over the right of life. We did not come to this point in our advance as humans in the world by a human law deciding how many children a marriage of a man and a woman could procreate, nor by legally allowing them or her to abort the baby.

Medical care is neither a good thing. It breaks the personal trust or relationship between patient and doctor. It provides so many safe opportunities for bad doctors, and make it difficult for good doctors to being able and quickly reached by its patients.

Further, not necessarily one gets that often sick to have all these money on health insurance. I might be wrong on this one as things and needs might change by individual and by age. I do not have enough arguments to support this points rather than my personal dislikes for insurance or for securing anything. I do not at what level of risk I live. But I rather I prefer to be financially disciplined and financially independent in order that if need to go to the doctor I pay at that moment. I see the point that it might be good for the good development of the medical research and medical services that my savings would be better in the hands of medical care company than in the bank. If the system work in that way. I would like that transparency treating it as a saving account, or a bank institution, which would even could loan money if a person needs and does not have enough founds for its medical services. But so far the medical insurances seems just to unclear to me. How the money works there is far from one can access or control, even if it is oneself money or in the case of many students and workers the insurance paid for them. I just do not like obscure processes. My doubts here are, in the case that a government would provide medical insurance or medical care for all, who pays, how good is the service for the people, how clear is the process, how good is that plenty of money will be allocated in the government and not in the people. Is it not better that the individual has the money and so buy or traditionally trade the services. Or is it better that the government has all the solution for all the people, and so the life of the individual is the one of a user. He or she would get benefits from the government, but not the freedom to choose them. He or she would have a life planned by the government with a retirement wage, but not the freedom of choose the life.

I would rather die in fighting on working in the field trying to do day by day what I believe, which is not necessarily just good for me, as it is a complete renunciation to oneself, but a fight to make individuals a true human with the right of thinking and acting free.

Thus, I would rather die on the work or that activity that I choose under my free will, even if that is working for the government of turn, rather than having a government deciding where should I study, where should I work, when should I retire, and so having a government deciding my life.

I am convinced that socialism is bad for the individual. It might promise more that it can do. And even if it can do many things for the society is not for the individual goal to expect that the government should solve one’s life, but rather to think how one can contribute to others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s