The Death of the Collectivist Dream

In response to a student's observation that a sense of entitlement is destructive and that such an attitude has deep historical roots.

I think that this is very important to understand. When Adam Smith talked about a system in which people can act in their own interest, but the result would be to maximize social welfare, he was talking about a system in which people do not have to depend on the goodness of others to supply their needs. While it would be nice to have a world where everyone was kind to everyone else, worked hard because it is the right thing to do and happily share what they have with everyone else. However, that world is not likely to be here anytime soon.

The Russian communists believed that Lenin and Stalin would be saints and that their fellow citizens would happily work hard without complaint. Tens of millions of dead later, it did not work out as planned. I think that it is a dangerous strategy to rely strictly on the government or any other institution to take care of you. The track record is not good.

I live in Utah, where our history is very connected to the Mormon Church. Like many churches of the 19th Century, the Mormons had their brush with the collectivist concept. It was called the United Order. All property was to be held jointly and the local Bishop was to administer the system. In most towns, this system failed in months. A few places (like Orderville, UT) managed for a few years. But, even with deeply religious people who had sacrificed everything to cross a continent for their religious beliefs were not successful with a system that caused everyone to be dependent on the good intentions of leaders and those around them to provide all of their needs.

The concept sounds great. Throughout history, it has been tried again and again. But, the actual record is a record of dismal failure after dismal failure.

		April 16, 2005 *The Death of the Collectivist Dream*
	In response to a student's observation that a sense of entitlement is destructive and that such an attitude has deep historical roots. I think that this is very important to understand. When Adam Smith talked about a system in which people can act in their own interest, but the result would be to maximize social welfare, he was talking about a system in which people do not have to depend on the goodness of others to supply their needs. While it would be nice to have a world where everyone was kind to everyone else, worked hard because it is the right thing to do and happily share what they have with everyone else. However, that world is not likely to be here anytime soon. The Russian communists believed that Lenin and Stalin would be saints and that their fellow citizens would happily work hard without complaint. Tens of millions of dead later, it did not work out as planned. I think that it is a dangerous strategy to rely strictly on the government or any other institution to take care of you. The track record is not good. I live in Utah, where our history is very connected to the Mormon Church. Like many churches of the 19th Century, the Mormons had their brush with the collectivist concept. It was called the United Order. All property was to be held jointly and the local Bishop was to administer the system. In most towns, this system failed in months. A few places (like Orderville, UT) managed for a few years. But, even with deeply religious people who had sacrificed everything to cross a continent for their religious beliefs were not successful with a system that caused everyone to be dependent on the good intentions of leaders and those around them to provide all of their needs. The concept sounds great. Throughout history, it has been tried again and again. But, the actual record is a record of dismal failure after dismal failure.