Essay #4: Socialism is bad, VERY bad: A Mathematical Proof.
Let’s have a little fun this time. Maybe just a TAD less serious… (just a tad)
We can prove that Socialism is very bad MATHEMATICALLY too. Let’s have a go at it, shall we?
“Haves”… have stuff. It’s why we call ’em “Haves.” They have stuff, because they WANT to have stuff, so they bend their efforts to have stuff. Let’s say they have “P”. (for “Prosperity“)
“Have Nots” have stuff too, but not as much. Let’s say they have “P-p” (Little p for LESS prosperity) It’s the quantity representing the DIFFERENCE between Prosperous and Not Prosperous.
We know that the Socialist insists on equality.
So, here is a mathematical expression that the Socialist would see as describing the mathematical relationship between those who have, and those who have not: P=P-p.
We easily recognize that expression to be NOT TRUE. “P” (Prosperous) can not, by definition, be equal to “P-p” (Not Prosperous). So, “P=P-p” can be re-stated as “Prosperous = Not Prosperous,” and, as mentioned, we see easily that the expression’s not true.
This is an imbalance — an INEQUALITY — and the Socialist believes it is bad. Very bad.
The Socialist would insist that the above expression represents an inequality — or INEQUITY — and that it must be fixed. He’d say that to fix it, you must turn it into a balanced equation. You must subtract little “p” from the left side of the equation, so that it would read:
“P-p=P-p”, which could be re-stated as “Not Prosperous=Not Prosperous,” which is, of course, a true statement.
This outcome, in which both sides are equal, but Not Prosperous, would be what the Socialist would label: “Good,” and “Progress.”
Notice, though, how the Socialist achieves equality. He SUBTRACTS from where there is plenty. He removes, deletes, erases prosperity, and thereby achieves equality. He magically transforms the Prosperous into the Not Prosperous, to match the right side of the original expression.
Now, I think you can see where this is heading. But there’s a twist as well.
Here’s how the Capitalist views things.
The Capitalist recognizes that the expression P=P-p does indeed describe an inequality, and he agrees that it’s not good.
The Capitalist proposes a solution too. He suggests that we should ADD little “p” to both sides of the expression — “P=P-p” — to produce: P+p=P. At first glance, we recognize that the expression, like the first one, is also NOT true.
But… and it’s a VERY big one. Prosperity has no upper limit. No matter how much you add to Prosperity, you still have… Prosperity. In this case, P+p=P is indeed a TRUE statement! In words, it means “Prosperity + More Prosperity = Prosperity” This is, obviously, a true statement.
Note how the Capitalist solved the inequality: He ADDED (little “p”) prosperity to BOTH sides of the “Have-Have Not” equation.
Yes, yes, yes, I know… numerically at least, the expression is STILL not true.
So, let’s AGAIN examine two more people, say: Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk this time.
Jeff B. is worth about 100 billion bucks, while Elon M. is worth a measly 30 billion. The Capitalist recognizes that Elon’s fortune is not as big as Jeff’s… but, and here’s the big deal, the Capitalist doesn’t view that as a problem. In fact, the Capitalist would say that the difference shows a good thing: INEQUALITY. Because inequality under Capitalism — which imposes no limits on anyone’s opportunity to achieve prosperity — is a GOOD thing; in proper amounts.
Furthermore, the Capitalist ALSO recognizes that there’s no real QUALITATIVE difference between the hyper-prosperous Jeff B. and the hyper-prosperous Elon M. That even though Jeff B. is THREE TIMES as prosperous as Elon M., there’s no REAL difference between the two.
Furthermore, there’s not THAT much difference between Jeff Bezos and someone with a paltry $100 MILLION in wealth… even though Bezos has a THOUSAND times more prosperity than the 100 millionaire. Both Jeff B. and the 100 millionaire have effectively no REAL constraints on how they live their lives.
The Capitalist looks at the expression P+p=P and recognizes that it is true. He restates it as follows: Prosperity+prosperity=Prosperity. And he easily understands that as a true statement. As should anyone.
As would, presumably, you and I. As would any Socialist! Who then ought to admit — if he has any maturity, intelligence, integrity or decency at all — that his doctrine has now been proven to be bad.