Very thoughtful, Beldin! Maybe you can help me tighten this up?
My goal, again, isn't to come up with a too-long list of reasons why Socialism isn't a good idea. I think that has been tried by intellectuals for over a century, and the Socialism keeps spreading.
My idea is to strike the root and leave the opposition either speechless ... or ADMITTING they are opposed to liberty and in favor of Collectivism.
I am also thinking I may start using the word "collectivism" a lot more. I've been using words like "totalitarianism", "Statism", "Communism", and "Fascism" for some time because I can define them cleanly.
But "collectivism" makes it considerably more clear, I think? To my mind, CHOICE REALLY ONLY APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS. Collectives are all about LACK-OF-CHOICE, typically because they will break you or KILL YOU if you don't shut up and go along with THEIR collective.
By the way, every layer of restriction is another degree of freedom removed. As I like to point out, a governor in a mechanical system is something which REDUCES freedom (choice). A government is always and everywhere about REMOVING freedom. One freedom or another, one minority at a time, is inexorably extinguished.
People who think “their” minority group is somehow going to gain long term security and benefit by stripping the security, choice, and freedom of other minority groups is a pervasive disease in the world.
And, yes, Hayek is also right that socialism translates to higher prices and increased corruption, as people stop doing productive things and others realize they can win big by becoming "King of the Hill". But, when you only have one minute to explain the problem with socialism, the argument needs to be VERY concise and hard to dismiss.
| 
