I like symmetry, and it pleases me aesthetically that much (most? all?) of the universe is conceptually symmetrical. For example, addition and multiplication are commutative and associative:
x + y == y + x
x * y == y * x
x + (y + z) == (x + y) + z
x * (y * z) == (x * y) * z
It always bothered me that division and subtraction weren't commutative and associative, until I realized that neither of those operations is truly a fundamental mathematical concept; both are combinations of two other operations. Subtraction is addition with negation, and division is multiplication with inversion. Thus, conceptual symmetry is maintained.
Please understand that the symmetry I'm talking about is very high level. Addition is symmetric, and so is capitalism -- you put work into the system, you get benefits out. Socialism is so awkward and absurd to me because it attempts to break this natural symmetry by disconnecting work from reward, and it fails for just that reason. I hope my meaning of conceptual symmetry is clear from these examples, because I'm not sure I can define it more rigidly at this juncture.
Conceptual symmetry depends a great deal on how we humans connect and relate concepts together. If a concept does not balance symmetrically, then it is generally the case that the concept is not well-formed, and does not represent reality. SDB gives a perfect example of a malformed concept when he writes that:
There's the old saw about the irresistible force and the immovable object and what happens when the irresistible force is applied to the immovable object. (The question turns out to be nonsense. It's logically impossible for both to exist in the same universe, so it's logically impossible for them to ever meet. Therefore it makes no sense to discuss what would happen if they did.) In our universe it turns out that every force is irresistible and no object is immovable. Any object, no matter how massive, will respond to any force, no matter how small. The response may be miniscule, but it isn't zero.It's an interesting mental exercise to consider what would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable object, and the question may appear symmetrical on the surface. The fact that the question is actually nonsensical within our universe, however, demonstrates that the concept behind it is not actually symmetrical. Force and mass are entirely different concepts that cannot be symmetrically related by the "moves" operation.
(Here is an interesting mental exercise: what if there were immovable objects? It would require some sort of universal static friction. Such a universe would not have Newton's three laws of motion. Another, even more difficult exercise: imagine a world in which addition and multiplication were not commutative. (You can't do it.))
Symmetry, eh? Quantum non-conservation of parity probably isn't your favorite subject, then.
And as for imagining a world where addition and multiplication aren't commutative, that will require a touch more of the grape. The non-Abelian grape, of course.
Well, a double parity transformation gets you right back where you started. Plus, particles and anti-particles with intrinsic parity have opposite handedness.
Not that I knew any of this before reading about quantum parity just now. Still, it looks pretty symmetric to me.
Don't know if it's relevant, but Ella Fitzgerald explained it...
When an irresistable force such as you
Meets an old immoveable object like me
You can bet as sure as you live
Somethin's Gotta Give Somethin's Gotta Give
Somethin's Gotta Give
;^D
I think the issue you're overlooking is what I might term "disconnected asymmetry." What I mean by this are 2 events, which taken together do generate a symmetric result, but which may not occur by a strict cause->effect type of relationship.
At the quantum level, just to use an example, a photon excites an electron to a higher energy state. Eventually, that electron (or another one, if the excitation leads to dissociation) will fall back to it's previous state. However, the excitation and return processes may not be directly causally linked. A return to the previous state is inevitable (assuming that this state was the ground state,) but it's the time factor which is key.
I believe that the socialists are relying on this time factor, in large part, to make their arguments. Put work in now to get benefits out later. This is a much trickier argument to overcome, and more so for those of us who are Christians and are used to seeing this same argument used regarding our spiritual lives. Furthermore, given that a large part of the country does have religious proclivities to one degree or another, the socialism argument works far better than it otherwise would.
If we can figure out how to disconnect the time factor from the socialist arguments, I believe that socialism as a practical approach to society might actually die, finally.
The two events may not individually be symmetric, but the single concept behind them still is.
Capitalism seems like it's the same as socialism in the sense that you describe: the benefits for some work come long after the work is complete (like school). I think that's just basic economics, and not unique to socialism or any other structure. And I don't think it violates symmetry.
Well, the difference between capitalism and socialism as I described them is that socialism seeks to guarantee not only the content of the reward, but the timing as well. Capitalism makes no such guarantees, not even that there will be a reward.
The more 2 events are disconnected in time, the easier it is to lose sight of any possible connection and to therefore treat those 2 events as separate, even though they are not since we know the second event will occur, just not when.
Socialism, I believe, relies on this separation in time to rhetorically divide "the classes" into those who are exploiting (receiving rewards now) -vs- those who are being exploited (have not received their rewards yet.) The longer the time between the work and reward, the easier it is to convince people that there is no connection.
If we could take the initial premise as a metaphor, we could consider the irresistible force as western modernism, and the immovable object as the islamism with which it now collides. One or the other, most likely the latter, will cease to exist.