What you sow is what you reap

An excerpt from the book War On Success on Socialism in the classroom.

Dr. Michael Youssef once told a story that was about a Texas Tech economics professor who once failed his entire class. Here’s how it happened. After listening to his students argue vociferously that socialism creates a fairer more just society, the professor tried an experiment. He announced that test grades henceforth would be determined by averaging all the students’ grades–in other words, every student would get the same grade.

The class averaged a low “B” on the first test. The result disappointed a handful of students who had studied hard and thought they had earned an “A,” but other who didn’t study all were quite pleased. On the next test, the class average dropped by a steep twelve points to a low “C.” This severely upset the good students, sparking tension between them and the students who didn’t study.

The class average sunk to a “D” on the next test, angering even the worst students, who had grown accustomed to “B’s” and “C’s.” The high-achieving students became so disengaged that they largely skipped the last two weeks of class. Thus, no one was surprised when the class flunked the final exam.

In the end, despite the poor grades, the students learned a good lesson: When you try to prevent failure, no on really succeeds. When you try to make everyone a winner, you just create more losers.

Why do people seem to think that this is such a good idea? Seems like only the people not willing to work thinking that socialism or redistribution of wealth is a good idea. I’ll come out and say it very plainly. I’m a capitalist. I believe, for the most part, that capitalism brings out the best in people. There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule, but I’m talking about the majority of the time, it brings out the highest potential in people, if they are willing to sacrifice.

“Believing in capitalism does not mean believing in growth, the economy, or efficiency. Desirable as they may be, those are only the results. At its core, belief in capitalism is belief in mankind.” – Johan Norberg

So why do I believe what I do? I believe every one of us is a child of God. A God that wants us to succeed and has given us the ability to do so. To act, and not be acted upon. To believe in ourselves and to feel believed in. He has given you and me the opportunity (not a hand out) to succeed in this life. It’s up to us how we respond to that opportunity. The Law of the Harvest applies to every aspect of our lives. Should we take that lightly?

“Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” – Galatians 6:7

Capitalism, God, Johan Norberg, Law of the Harvest, Michael Youssef, Socialism, War on Success

Pingback: Tweets that mention New blog post: What you sow is what you reap -- Topsy.com
http://www.charissataylor.com/ Charissa Taylor

Great post! I agree with you that capitalism means much more than just business and the economy. It's the opportunity and willingness to work your behind off to get where you want to be!
Sam

Yea, I think a large majority of the US agrees with this basic stance on capitalism. It's when you start getting into more specific social programs that you get your hands dirty.
Trevor Price

Nice write-up for the most part. One thing first–I'd caution you to shy away from using scripture to endorse any particular type of economic/political system (not that you were necessarily doing this, but I've seen it done often). Scripture is meant to bring an individual closer to God, and its meaning starts becoming increasingly strained the farther you take it from that goal.

Second, even though capitalistic systems are a big factor in our country's current prosperity, we have to be careful not to worship at the throne of capitalism and treat it like it's a silver bullet for every situation. I do think there are some aspects of civilization that are better off socialized; particularly those that are deemed as the bare minimum level of life that we desire even the laziest person in the country to have, e.g. some form of education, some form of healthcare, some level of subsistence or aid, etc.
gborcherds

You know, I have a hard time agreeing with Trevor on the fact that the laziest person to have certain things given to them by right. I think it is better that we give the opportunity to everyone to have these things, mainly the opportunity to learn, but government programs in and of themselves should not geared to satisfying a need. They should be geared, like a business and a capitalist venture, toward changing society for the greater good and providing an opportunity for people to become self dependent and successful. Welfare, social security, government health care, are all things that will eventually just hurt us a successful society. We feed money in and never see any benefits.

I personally think that a little more capitalism is where you will see more success, even in government programs. For example, education today in public school is just horrible. Kids are just passed along like no big deal and then they flood into community colleges and online schools “to become educated.” But where is the education? Have they learned anything? I dare say they have. And although I blame a majority of this on parents not teaching their kids of the importance of it and on the kids for not taking ownership of it, I do have to put blame on the government's role in the education process. If education is so dang important than why do teachers make 1/4th of what a US senator does? Why can there be billions of funding for health care, but schools can't afford text books? The reason is socialism and this idea of all things being equal. No matter what you do programs don't work. You must eventually push things to individuals and make it their responsibility to improve things. Once people are motivated, great things will happen. Until then we are fooling ourselves into thinking we are doing something great by passing national health care and creating “change we can believe in.” The only change I believe in is the one where people make a change in their own life, stop being lazy, and take it upon themselves to take care of themselves and not look to some entity for help. It's pathetic.
http://dustingtaylor.com/ Dustin Taylor

Thanks for the comment Charissa!

I agree, that capitalism really either makes or breaks you in the sense that you actually have to work for what you want. And you actually get what you deserve.

I don't say this because I have run the capitalist system to my advantage… I'm just a poor newly-wed college student. But I do have an opportunity that I won't let go of.
http://dustingtaylor.com/ Dustin Taylor

Sam, thanks for commenting!

I would have to argue your point though. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but I'm arguing that all social programs need to have some sort of capitalist principles ingrained to succeed for mankind in the long run.
Trevor Price

So for the laziest of them all, what do we do? Let them hemorrhage in the streets when they try to seek medical attention? Should we privatize all education, leaving the laziest people's children completely uneducated? Do we shut down homeless centers and employment aid centers?

I think we have pretty much agreed that, no matter how undeserving a person might seem, there are certain things we agree to provide, because to deny providing these things would result in a worse result.
http://dustingtaylor.com/ Dustin Taylor

Hey Trevor! Thanks for visiting and commenting. I appreciate interaction.

I didn't necessarily use scripture to back up a political system, but rather my own viewpoint. I believe heavily in scripture and it's ingrained and affected the way I think, so I definitely use it as a resource to back up my own viewpoint.

I don't know that I worship at the throne of capitalism as much as I do at the throne of immense opportunity that a capitalist system provides.
Trevor Price

Right, I meant to clarify that I didn't think that you in particular were falling into that trap with your post here, just that I've seen it happen so often when people write on topics like this.
gborcherds

I don't know if I completely agree though that things will get worse. Your argument is based on the idea that there will always be a set of people that must be taken care of because they are unable to do it for themselves. I don't agree with that at all. Sure people make mistakes and things like homeless shelters help while people figure things out. The problem is that there is no motivation for the person to leave the homeless shelter and do something about their life.

For example I recently had a friend who turned down a job offer because he made more money on unemployment than he would through the job. Are we providing for his needs because he can't take care of them himself? Or are we just enabling him to be lazy?

It's probably a tough thing to believe, but I think we forget how resourceful people are. Back in the day when we were “hunters and gatherers” a lot of people found a way to survive, despite the fact that government wasn't around to help out. So what's different today? The notion that not providing people with certain things will result in worse things is absolutely based on an idea that I just cannot agree with at all. It is thoughts like that that enable the lazy people of the world to be lazy. Make people take care of themselves and you'll be surprised by the result.
Trevor Price

The thing about your friend–he'll probably eventually decide that the unemployment benefits are providing an insufficient quality of life and that it isn't a good idea for the long term. Besides, to qualify for benefits, you have to provide evidence that you're actively seeking a new job (I've been there).

I'm not saying our system is perfect, or even close, or that it doesn't need reform, or that it doesn't encourage people to remain leeches. I'm just saying that we do need *something* like it, unless we abandon the idea of compassion altogether.

Way back in the day, if you got a broken leg, your life expectancy rate just got slashed. There simply wasn't a realistic way to provide for someone that was completely invalid, say. As the saying goes, it seems unconscionable that we have poverty in this country today. We have the means to provide temporary help for those who are struggling, and (hopefully) the ingenuity and leaders to motivate and lift up those who are content with being bottom feeders.
gborcherds

Okay, I can agree with the idea that we need to have compassion. I believe in helping others. I'm just saying that there are better ways and that the level of expected help is different than what society thinks today. It is true that back in the day a broken leg meant you were pretty much done for and today, it's no big deal. My question then is, what is the definition of poverty? Also, what is the definition of “temporary help?” I think that we have a problem of saying that we have all these needy people when in reality we have one of the best economic societies in the world.

Although we can go back and forward on the same principles about what we should do ethically, or what programs work the best, in the end the fact remains that no matter what we do, the only improvement will be through individuals. People have to decide to change. Like you said my friend eventually would become unhappy with his level of life and would change. That again assumes that he isn't content on being a leech. It relies on the individual taking charge and nothing government or I can do will change that.

People will always take advantage and be the leeches of society. There will always be some mouth to feed, some person to give shelter to. Should we be providing that? Or should we be finding ways that we can inspire people to change and figure out a way to provide it for themselves?

All of your arguments in the end take responsibility off of certain people and put them on other people. I'm in favor of anything that takes responsibility and puts it back onto the people that need to take it. Until we do that, we will never solve any of our problems. Despite how compassionate people might be.
Nate

Good post. I liked the points you made. I think the term “capitalism” has a negative connotation because it's so misunderstood and mischaracterized (it also takes the blame for the failures of government and socialism). People often forget that “capitalism” is simply freedom. Consequently, alternative societal orders to capitalism involve infringing on individual freedom and natural rights. So to me, the strongest reasons for rejecting any alternative systems is that they involve stealing, threatening, and violating inviduals' natural rights to freedom and liberty. As such they are immoral–violating basic morals and principles of natural law. Unfortunately, people have an ingrained fallacy that anything done through democracy is moral. However, slavery is still wrong, even when it is done through democratic means. Because of this fallacy, people fail to recognize when they accept laws and policies which directly contradict their morals and principles. Such reasoning is what makes it possible for government to commit a litany of abuses against the average person.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

“There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If i do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.”

People often justify infringing on individuals' rights under the pretext of improved outcome and utility. However, even if socialism, fascism, communism, etc., achieved superior economic gains (of course they produce the opposite), they would still be wrong because they violate natural rights. The neat thing about freedom is that it actually is by far the best system for achieving the highest utility and economic efficiency. Conversely, coercive government programs not only fail morally, but they also fail economically. Charity is no longer charity when it involves forcefully stealing individuals' private property. Only private charity moral, and history has shown that it is the best option for alleviating societal ills.
Nate

Good post. I liked the points you made. I think the term “capitalism” has a negative connotation because it's so misunderstood and mischaracterized (it also takes the blame for the failures of government and socialism). People often forget that “capitalism” is simply freedom. Consequently, alternative societal orders to capitalism involve infringing on individual freedom and natural rights. So to me, the strongest reasons for rejecting any alternative systems is that they involve stealing, threatening, and violating inviduals' natural rights to freedom and liberty. As such they are immoral–violating basic morals and principles of natural law. Unfortunately, people have an ingrained fallacy that anything done through democracy is moral. However, slavery is still wrong, even when it is done through democratic means. Because of this fallacy, people fail to recognize when they accept laws and policies which directly contradict their morals and principles. Such reasoning is what makes it possible for government to commit a litany of abuses against the average person.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

“There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If i do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.”

People often justify infringing on individuals' rights under the pretext of improved outcome and utility. However, even if socialism, fascism, communism, etc., achieved superior economic gains (of course they produce the opposite), they would still be wrong because they violate natural rights. The neat thing about freedom is that it actually is by far the best system for achieving the highest utility and economic efficiency. Conversely, coercive government programs not only fail morally, but they also fail economically. Charity is no longer charity when it involves forcefully stealing individuals' private property. Only private charity moral, and history has shown that it is the best option for alleviating societal ills.