[caption width="668" align="alignnone"]<img src="https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/15558/width668/2ptqrmxc-1347861843.jpg" width="668" height="450" class /> Source: theconversation.com.au[/caption]

To Marx, socialism was seen as an intermediate stage as an economy transitioned between capitalism and communism. While few people cling to the failed (and impractical) ideology of collective ownership of the means of production, many still feel that market failure occurs frequently and that we are best served by a large government that can step in and 'defend' the interests of everyone in society. 

What I wish to discuss here are the flaws with the political ideology of what I call remnant socialism, as promoted by the 'broad left' of politics. In Australia, the left still have faith that beyond the key government areas of ensuring access to universal healthcare, education, defense and law & order, the government is better placed than the marketplace to provided services to its citizens - postal services, utilities, and so-called 'infrastructure', to name a few. 

In my experience members of the broad left are usually very kind, caring people. They genuinely want the world to be a better place, and are driven by very lofty goals; Equality, fairness, giving the 'little guy' a fair-go, providing a safety net for those less fortunate. Providing free education and healthcare to everyone. And financial support while you are out of work, or if you are unfortunate enough to become incapacitated.

I agree with all of these goals. But disagree on many points with how you go about achieving them in practice.

As I see it there are three fundamental problems with remnant socialism:
1) While the human mind is limitless in its ability to conceive of well-meaning ways to spend money on social programs, there are real world constraints that sooner-or-later will come back to haunt those that consistently spend more than they earn. These constraints are not of money, but of wealth and wealth generation (income).
2) In practice, when an opportunity presents itself many people will choose to game the system.
3) In general, the leaders who gravitate to the left tend to think they 'know better'. They honestly believe they are better informed, more mature and have a broader understanding of the world than others. And if people disagree with them, they very quickly label them and write-off their opinions. A difference of opinion is not a difference of opinion to them - it is that their opponents are idiots, racists, ignorant, unrepresentative swill, whatever. 

The leaders of the broad left believe we are all on a path of learning and understanding, but they are just a little further down the road than the rest of us. And it is their duty to 'help' us by curbing our immature behaviours through legislation and regulation. Often they don't think this goes far enough so they choose to go a little further than just regulating our behaviours; they want to limit our thinking and talking - through such devices as political correctness, media watchdogs and various other legislative limitations on the freedom of expression. Many of these ideas are well intentioned, but they undeniably restrict freedom of speech.

Being a politically moderate, I often feel that my views overlap more closely with the centre-right of the Australian Labor Party than the conservative right of the Liberal Party. But when push comes to shove, I would rather align myself with Tony Abbott than Chris Bowen (who I actually think could prove to be Labor's saviour).

The reason I fall right of the line rather than left relates directly to the three issues I've discussed:

1) We must all live within our means, and in this light every legislative and regulatory choice we make as a community must have a financial cost-benefit analysis. This imperative is especially important in the biggest portions of the budget; healthcare, welfare, education and law and order. Regrettably but necessarily this means saying "no" to unproven and costly treatments for life-threatening conditions. It also means that hospitals should always operate near capacity, waiting lists should be expected for non-lifethreatening health care. Unfortunately time and again Labor have proven that cannot say "no" to a worthwhile cause, economic conservatism will always be trumped by populism.

2) I am a firm believer that 'free money' helps no one, and there should always be an incentive to work and contribute. I believe in a welfare safety-net, but would prefer a two-tier system that applies to all. One based on coupons and the other based on cash-for-work. I'll discuss this in a later article.

3) I feel morally obliged to stand up to the broad left when it comes to their elitism, and their attempts to limit my freedoms though nanny-state regulation. On all the important issues there are no right answers, just opinions. Paul Keating's opinions are no more important than that those held by my uneducated grandmother.

<blockquote>We are all better off in a society where
everyone is <em>incentivised</em> to contribute.</blockquote>

So to summarise, the reason I am a moderate liberal rather than a moderate (centre-right) member of the ALP, is that I believe:
- We need to consistently live within our means.
- There is no need for new government programs; the key pillars of government services are already in place. 
- There should be no incentives in place that discourage work
- I do not think I am better than anyone

If left un-opposed, left-wing thinking leads to a society that is either poor or bankrupt, a populace that is incentivised to be lazy and dependent, and a government that is intellectual and autocratic. This is the reality for southern Europe right now.