[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why does government-run military need address all conflicts everywhere to be socialist? If so, than is public health care also not socialist unless it provides health care to the entire world?

Our military is constitutionally commissioned to protect us against threats to our sovereignty; threats both foreign and domestic. Healthcare is designed specifically as domestic in scope. Now... to those working towards a globalist agenda, certainly healthcare for the entire world has and will continue to come up.

Government run military provides collective security to those citizens/tax payers who would not otherwise be able to afford such security on the private market. How is that *not* socialist?

Is socialism generally understood to rely on and benefit private industry to the extent that our military does?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Our military is constitutionally commissioned to protect us against threats to our sovereignty; threats both foreign and domestic.

Being constitutionally commissioned doesn't negate it from being socialist. In fact, I'd say that makes it *even more* socialist.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is socialism generally understood to rely on and benefit private industry to the extent that our military does?

I think reliance on private industry is irrelevant to whether or not something is socialist. Socialism is using the collective wealth of the population to offer a collective benefit that could not otherwise be realized by individuals; it buys in bulk. I think it's still socialism if the government uses that collective wealth to purchase from private industry in a way that benefits the population.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Being constitutionally commissioned doesn't negate it from being socialist. In fact, I'd say that makes it *even more* socialist.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that its powers were granted in writing at its inception. It follows this "socialism" would be more acceptable to a populace who has never lived without it. It also is not taking the lions-share of its resource from one demographic and giving the fruits of that resource to a different demographic. Arguments presented like those in this thread are most often used against those who oppose entitlement programs. If this thread is supposed to suggest that the opposition to entitlement is founded on a misunderstanding of "socialism", it only perpetuates the error while addressing none of the complaints.

I think reliance on private industry is irrelevant to whether or not something is socialist. Socialism is using the collective wealth of the population to offer a collective benefit that could not otherwise be realized by individuals; it buys in bulk. I think it's still socialism if the government uses that collective wealth to purchase from private industry in a way that benefits the population.

Again, perhaps so, but this does not address its ever-growing scope. You can appreciate something in moderation no?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, perhaps so, but this does not address its ever-growing scope. You can appreciate something in moderation no?

Absolutely, just so long as those decrying socialism recognize that they are supporting it in other areas.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Absolutely, just so long as those decrying socialism recognize that they are supporting it in other areas.

By this logic, those who decry the military and the police are decrying socialism then. We're kind of back at square one here. Those defending socialism are not willing to accept that this is what they're defending, why must one opposed to socialism accept your premise in these other areas?

[Chongo]

The National Parks/Monuments system has turned into a tool to put valuable natural resources out of reach. Bill Clinton did this when he declared the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. By doing so he put one of the largest low sulfur coal deposits in the world out of circulation. Coincidentally (or not), the only other large source of low sulfur coal is in Indonesia, and controlled by Clinton donor James Riyadi.

[Monique]

Government's intervention is the only way you have now national parks, places of beauty and a refuge for wildlife and flora.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Government's intervention is the only way you have now national parks, places of beauty and a refuge for wildlife and flora.

Not even remotely true. There are a large number of private parks, reserves, and conservancies.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not even remotely true. There are a large number of private parks, reserves, and conservancies.

[SpaceMonkey]

[nonhuman]

I was thinking more along the lines of:


There's a lot of others as well. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is The Maryland Land Conservation Center, but there are others in other states, all over the country.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By this logic, those who decry the military and the police are decrying socialism then. We're kind of back at square one here. Those defending socialism are not willing to accept that this is what they're defending, why must one opposed to socialism accept your premise in these other areas?

Socialism =! Peacenikism
Put another way, one can support socialism *and* military. Yes, many who support socialism don't support military action, but the two are not mutually exclusive. One does not need to support *all* socialist programs in order to support *some* socialist programs.

However, if you are opposed to Socialism in general, you must realize that some of the programs you *do* support may be socialist in nature. You can be opposed to public health care and welfare while supporting the military, but you can't be opposed Socialism while supporting a taxpayer funded military that provides security to all citizens.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Once upon a time when Yosemite was formed; private speculators drill a hole in a sequoa to let the cars passed through.

When the government talked about making a park in Alaska
private speculators received them with their guns.

The private sector has been complaining since the creation of National parks; that they cannot hunt, cut trees, exploit the mines, build hotels, etc. on these territories. This is why it is imperative that the National Parks stay under the management of government officiels; people that care about the future of such beautiful places.

[olePigeon]

This is just throwing me off. The same people that think National Parks are great and that it's important that the government keep control, are the same group accusing people of being tree hugging, terrorist loving, America hating socialists for being against drilling for oil in a National Park or off protected coasts. With the exception of nonhuman.

I started this satyrical thread out of amusement, and now it just has me completely confused.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Monique 

he private sector has been complaining since the creation of National parks; that they cannot hunt, cut trees, exploit the mines, build hotels, etc. on these territories. This is why it is imperative that the National Parks stay under the management of government officiels; people that care about the future of such beautiful places.

Again, you're completely ignoring the fact that there are private parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and nature preserves. Government is not the only entity capable of protecting beautiful places. Private enterprise is not solely interested in destroying the beauty of those places.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think reliance on private industry is irrelevant to whether or not something is socialist. Socialism is using the collective wealth of the population to offer a collective benefit that could not otherwise be realized by individuals; it buys in bulk. I think it's still socialism if the government uses that collective wealth to purchase from private industry in a way that benefits the population.

If the Gov is buying and has a choice of where it buys from (for the military we'll say for example GE or Pratt & Whitney) then they operate in a market. Which is capitalist. Which means that your socialism definition fails again.

Sorry, but it seems that just because something benefits someone and they don't pay for it directly you say it's socialist. That isn't the case. Clean air and water benefits everyone, how can that be socialist?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

If the Gov is buying and has a choice of where it buys from (for the military we'll say for example GE or Pratt & Whitney) then they operate in a market. Which is capitalist. Which means that your socialism definition fails again.

Sorry, but it seems that just because something benefits someone and they don't pay for it directly you say it's socialist. That isn't the case. Clean air and water benefits everyone, how can that be socialist?

Gotcha. So, you'd be ok with your tax dollars paying for the health care service of someone else, who doesn't pay as much in taxes as you do, as long as the health care service was acquired on the open market?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Socialism =! Peacenikism

I never said Socialism = Peacenikism.

Put another way, one can support socialism *and* military. Yes, many who support socialism don't support military action, but the two are not mutually exclusive. One does not need to support *all* socialist programs in order to support *some* socialist programs.

However, if you are opposed to Socialism in general, you must realize that some of the programs you *do* support may be socialist in nature. You can be opposed to public health care and welfare while supporting the military, but you can't be opposed Socialism while supporting a taxpayer funded military that provides security to all citizens.

... and a great deal of money to the private sector. I don't think people are as afraid of entities they're familiar with as they are those that float around under the radar or those that appear to be growing. Of course one can oppose socialism and support the military. I mean, by your logic I wouldn't be able to support our military at war against socialism. It's simple I guess, but I'm not buyin' it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean, by your logic I wouldn't be able to support our military at war against socialism. It's simple I guess, but I'm not buyin' it.

What do you mean "your military at war against socialism"? Do you see your military going to war against socialism some time soon?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What do you mean "your military at war against socialism"? Do you see your military going to war against socialism some time soon?

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed an alliance with the National Socialist German Workers' Party to invade Poland and divide up Europe. Mussolini (later to become fascist), etc...

Is it really implausible to you? Now, I grant you the notion of "going to war against Socialism" is as vague as "going to war against Islam", but can I not support our military while at war against a Socialist entity? Can I argue against the socialist caveats to military while combating socialist entities? See, this reasoning gets messy awful fast. (messy as a $600 hammer)

Let me put it another way, socialism I have to sign up for willingly and the purse of which is provided by elected representatives is not as "socialist" a concern to most as perhaps a socialist government itself that drafts policy we're required to live by regardless of our support and appears to grow in scope with every passing Administration.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Gotcha. So, you'd be ok with your tax dollars paying for the health care service of someone else, who doesn't pay as much in taxes as you do, as long as the health care service was acquired on the open market?

Yup. Even if it wasn't aquired on the open market but was government run I'd still be for it. Don't try and divert the discussion to health care though, this is about national parks. Not the same (IMHO).

[nonhuman]

Really completely irrelevant to this discussion, but I just want to point out, after ebuddy's last post, that National Socialism (Naziism) is not socialism. The name of the party was designed specifically so that it would appeal to as large a cross section of society as possible, and does not actually have any literal connection to the ideas and policies of the party. In fact anti-communism was one of the tenants of the party. Hitler's alliance with Stalin, I believe, can best be understood as an act of convenience. Especially as Hitler than turned around and attacked Russia.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

can I not support our military while at war against a Socialist entity? Can I argue against the socialist caveats to military while combating socialist entities? See, this reasoning gets messy awful fast. (messy as a $600 hammer)

Absolutely it gets messy, that's why it never makes sense to go to war against an ideology. But, to your question "can you support your military while at war against a socialist entity?". If you want to use a tax-payer funded military to combat socialism, then I'd say that's a bit hypocritical. *But*, if you want to go to war against a tyrannical regime that happens to be socialist, I see no problems with that.

Let me put it another way to you: given your support for capitalism, are you unable to support military action against capitalist nations?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me put it another way, socialism I have to sign up for willingly and the purse of which is provided by elected representatives is not as "socialist" a concern to most as perhaps a socialist government itself that drafts policy we're required to live by regardless of our support and appears to grow in scope with every passing Administration.

Then you aren't opposed to socialism. You're opposed to government policies that we're required to live by regardless of our support. But, you're also ok with some government polices that we're required to live by; you're ok with police enforcement of laws that you have little or no say in, you're ok with a military funded by your tax dollars undertaking actions that you have little or no say in, you're ok with government agencies undertaking increasing surveillance of the population. You might say that you can express your voice on these issues through an election, but you can also do so in the case of any policy passed by the Obama administration.

Increasing socialism does not equal decreasing democracy. You still have your power to vote.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Yup. Even if it wasn't aquired on the open market but was government run I'd still be for it. Don't try and divert the discussion to health care though, this is about national parks. Not the same (IMHO).

It's not a diversion at all. I'm simply trying to get to a clear definition of "socialism".

If we go with the dictionary definition, "government control over the means of production", then there is nothing that I'm aware of in the American government or Democratic party policies that is "socialist" and I hereby demand that all conservatives stop referring to Democrats and Liberals as "Socialists".
National Parks are not socialist.

If we go with a more general definition, "redistribution of wealth", then I submit that *everything* done using tax-dollars in the name of the population is socialist, since taxes are just a redistribution of wealth.
National Parks, and every other government program, are socialist.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Really completely irrelevant to this discussion, but I just want to point out, after ebuddy's last post, that National Socialism (Naziism) is not socialism. The name of the party was designed specifically so that it would appeal to as large a cross section of society as possible, and does not actually have any literal connection to the ideas and policies of the party. In fact anti-communism was one of the tenants of the party. Hitler's alliance with Stalin, I believe, can best be understood as an act of convenience. Especially as Hitler than turned around and attacked Russia.

National Socialism promoted collectivism over individualism.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

National Socialism promoted collectivism over individualism.

National Socialism was strongly anti-Communist in nature. In fact it wouldn't be a stretch to say that anti-Semitism and anti-Communism were its two most defining characteristics. It did have Socialist aspects to it's ideology, but was primarily a fascist system of thought. I would argue that any collectivist or socialist tendencies were not included for philosophical reasons, but simply to make the party more attractive to the German people at the time.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's not a diversion at all. I'm simply trying to get to a clear definition of "socialism".

Ahhhh. Thats what 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of arguments are about (IMHO) - peoples' definitions being different. How can we discuss whether apples are healthier for humans than oranges when we cannot even decided what an apple or an orange is.

Or a human for that matter.

When you get a clear definition, please enlighten me.

[ironknee]

you know the word "United" sounds socialistic

we should ask a REAL nazi what they think of socialists or commies... oh and a black president... i wonder what they would say

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Really completely irrelevant to this discussion, but I just want to point out, after ebuddy's last post, that National Socialism (Naziism) is not socialism. The name of the party was designed specifically so that it would appeal to as large a cross section of society as possible, and does not actually have any literal connection to the ideas and policies of the party. In fact anti-communism was one of the tenants of the party. Hitler's alliance with Stalin, I believe, can best be understood as an act of convenience. Especially as Hitler than turned around and attacked Russia.

Wait... communism = socialism? Why does opposition to one presuppose opposition to the other?

The "Socialist" tag in the full name was not the beginning of the socialist element in the Worker's Party anyway. Anton Drexler viewed instability in Germany as the product of disconnect between leaders and people-particulary middle and lower classes. Among Drexler's ideals were a strong central government movement and economic policy of socialism. He did so partially to challenge Communism.

I think the discussion has gotten butchered frankly because it seems the debate has morphed to arguments between all socialism and no socialism. While this discussion is derailing an otherwise feeble thread, the "all or nothing" premise doesn't lend itself well to improving it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Absolutely it gets messy, that's why it never makes sense to go to war against an ideology. But, to your question "can you support your military while at war against a socialist entity?". If you want to use a tax-payer funded military to combat socialism, then I'd say that's a bit hypocritical. *But*, if you want to go to war against a tyrannical regime that happens to be socialist, I see no problems with that.

This is just bizarre reasoning IMO. Again, I can appreciate a chocolate bar without wanting to dive into a vat of chocolate.

Let me put it another way to you: given your support for capitalism, are you unable to support military action against capitalist nations?

Of course I can support our military opposed to a capitalist nation that would seek our demise just as I can oppose a corporation that cooks its books. Can you support socialism, but oppose putting the guy down the street on your mortgage?

Then you aren't opposed to socialism.

I'm opposed to its growth in tipping the overall balance of governance. Like I said, I can appreciate a chocolate bar without wanting one for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you can produce for me a system of government that is all one thing or all another, I'll gladly make a choice between one or the other. Otherwise, we're dealing in fantasy land. There are those quick to argue against capitalists using entities friendly to them such as the police and military while arguing for an increase in centralized government authority on other issues... then railing on forms of centralized authority throughout society like the police and military. If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy.

Increasing socialism does not equal decreasing democracy. You still have your power to vote.

Socialism fully realized, requires communism. It tips the balance of productivity by failing to acknowledge the reality of over-achievement and under-achievement, (within like occupations) and exhausts resource to the point where a centralized authority over productivity becomes increasingly necessary. We're likely going to disagree, but I believe this has already become evident in our lifetime and our government is reacting exactly as you'd expect by drafting policy that is a net harm to capitalism.

So... I can appreciate chocolate while not wanting to swim in it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

A nation's armed forces isn't a socialist program, its the outward arm of state power, the part of the state that's able to wield deadly force to protect or further a nation's interests. Always has been, always will be.

It's like declaring the Romans or ancient Egyptians or anyone else throughout history all 'socialists' because they had armed forces.

Yeah, okay, sure. Any and everything is socialist so let's all bend over for a socialist scheme for our healthcare. No thanks.

[Wiskedjak]

Sigh ... yes, a nation's armed forced isn't a socialist program. But, I believe the collective protection offered to citizens by using tax dollars to fund a military *is* socialism, if socialism is considered to be redistribution of wealth.

In a true capitalist society, citizens and businessus would be hiring private militaries on the open market for protection of their individual interests. The quality of protection you received would relate directly to how much you could afford to pay for it.

In the current case, everybody in America benefits equally for the service offered by the military. Some pay more than others to fund that protection, some pay less. Some don't pay at all. Those who pay more are subsidizing for those who pay less or don't pay at all. That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I can support our military opposed to a capitalist nation that would seek our demise just as I can oppose a corporation that cooks its books. Can you support socialism, but oppose putting the guy down the street on your mortgage?

*You* said that you wouldn't be able to support a war against a socialist nation if you supported socialism. I asked if you could support a war against a capitalist nation to illustrate that you *can* support a war against a nation that happens to have an ideology that you support.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm opposed to its growth in tipping the overall balance of governance. Like I said, I can appreciate a chocolate bar without wanting one for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you can produce for me a system of government that is all one thing or all another, I'll gladly make a choice between one or the other. Otherwise, we're dealing in fantasy land. There are those quick to argue against capitalists using entities friendly to them such as the police and military while arguing for an increase in centralized government authority on other issues... then railing on forms of centralized authority throughout society like the police and military. If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy.

I agree with this. We don't need to be fully socialist. I just want people who think that they are fully opposed to socialism to realize that some of the programs they support might just be socialist in nature. Socialism, in moderation, isn't evil.

So... I can appreciate chocolate while not wanting to swim in it.

I believe we're saying much the same thing, with some distinctions, of course. I'm *not* saying that because you appreciate some socialism that you need to dive right in to all socialism. I'm saying that I believe socialism exists even in some institutions fully supported by even the most stalwart of Republicans/Conservatives/Capitalists.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sigh ... yes, a nation's armed forced isn't a socialist program. But, I believe the collective protection offered to citizens by using tax dollars to fund a military *is* socialism, if socialism is considered to be redistribution of wealth.

The military isn't the collective protection offered to citizens, or the redistribution of wealth, it's its the outward arm of state power, the part of the state that's able to wield deadly force to protect or further a nation's interests. Always has been, always will be.

In a true capitalist society, citizens and businessus would be hiring private militaries on the open market for protection of their individual interests. The quality of protection you received would relate directly to how much you could afford to pay for it.

No. A capitalist society as well as any other will have a state with the power to protect itself with armed forces. You're simply creating false goalposts that never have and never will be the real measure of any of this.

In the current case, everybody in America benefits equally for the service offered by the military. Some pay more than others to fund that protection, some pay less. Some don't pay at all. Those who pay more are subsidizing for those who pay less or don't pay at all. That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.

That's simply because you're stretching the term 'redistribution of wealth' to fit something it doesn't- you're desperately pounding an octagonal peg into a round hole and going, "SSee? Looks like it fits to me!" Our nation had a military long before we even had income taxes- it was never set up to be, nor ever reconfigured to be the redistribution of wealth, rather, what every nation has, the outward arm of state power.........

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The military isn't the collective protection offered to citizens, or the redistribution of wealth, it's its the outward arm of state power, the part of the state that's able to wield deadly force to protect or further a nation's interests. Always has been, always will be.

But, in the case of a democracy, the state *is* the citizens. The nation's interests are the collective interests of it's citizens.

If all citizens are able to equally enjoy the benefits of a tax-payer funded service regardless of their ability to pay into the service, that's redistribution of wealth.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If all citizens are able to equally enjoy the benefits of a tax-payer funded service regardless of their ability to pay into the service, that's redistribution of wealth.

Actually, it isn't.

"Redistribution of wealth" is a specific attempt by government to even a gap in income by taking from one wealthier group and funding a program to benefit another less wealthier group. It's actually not something where both parties enjoy the benefits of the redistribution equally (whether by design or unintended consequence) - one group pays for the benefit, the other receives the benefit.

The military doesn't fit that mold in any way. As I said before, the US military existed, and fought several wars long before there was an individual income tax. (1913).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"Redistribution of wealth" is a specific attempt by government to even a gap in income by taking from one wealthier group and funding a program to benefit another less wealthier group. It's actually not something where both parties enjoy the benefits of the redistribution equally (whether by design or unintended consequence) - one group pays for the benefit, the other receives the benefit.

Which is exactly what happens with a tax-funded military in a democratic country. Wealthier groups and less wealthier groups are able to enjoy the benefits of the military equally, despite their inability to pay for it equally.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The military doesn't fit that mold in any way. As I said before, the US military existed, and fought several wars long before there was an individual income tax. (1913).

Irrelevant. The American auto and banking industries existed long before the American government started buying into them. The American health industry existed long before Obama started talking about socializing it. I suppose that means that Obama's plans for health care aren't socialist?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"Redistribution of wealth" is a specific attempt by government to even a gap in income by taking from one wealthier group and funding a program to benefit another less wealthier group. It's actually not something where both parties enjoy the benefits of the redistribution equally (whether by design or unintended consequence) - one group pays for the benefit, the other receives the benefit.

I agree with Crash.

If every group received the same share of benefits, corresponding to what they paid in, it wouldn't be re-distribution.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Which is exactly what happens with a tax-funded military in a democratic country. Wealthier groups and less wealthier groups are able to enjoy the benefits of the military equally, despite their inability to pay for it equally.

You just said the exact opposite of what I said.

Irrelevant.

Try inconvenient to your argument. You're trying to say something is socialist because its funded by taxes, when it existed long before the taxes did. So clearly it wasn't set up around redistribution of wealth, or even taxes, (as if something so obvious even needs to be pointed out) nor was it ever restructured as such.

The American auto and banking industries existed long before the American government started buying into them.The American health industry existed long before Obama started talking about socializing it. I suppose that means that Obama's plans for health care aren't socialist?

You're not following any consistent logic and it seems just tossing things out hoping they'll make some sort of sense.

The auto and banking industries are private enterprises- the military never was even before the existence of income taxes.

Why would Obama talking about socializing a non-socialist industry automatically not be called socialist?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I agree with Crash.

If every group received the same share of benefits, corresponding to what they paid in, it wouldn't be re-distribution.

-t

So, do American citizens receive the same share of the benefits of the American military corresponding to what they paid in? Because, it seems to me that American citizens receive *equal* benefit of the American military despite paying in *unequal* amounts.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"Redistribution of wealth" is a specific attempt by government to even a gap in income by taking from one wealthier group and funding a program to benefit another less wealthier group. It's actually not something where both parties enjoy the benefits of the redistribution equally (whether by design or unintended consequence) - one group pays for the benefit, the other receives the benefit.

"Redistribution of wealth" is a specific attempt by government to even a gap in income by taking from one wealthier group and funding [the military] to benefit another less wealthier group. The wealthy are also able to enjoy the benefits of the program, but they're generally able to afford better. That's why some of the wealthiest have their own private protection, to varying degrees based on what they can afford.

The point of socialism is to provide equal benefit to everyone.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"Redistribution of wealth" is a specific attempt by government to even a gap in income by taking from one wealthier group and funding [the military] to benefit another less wealthier group.

Okay, it's pretty clear you're grasping at straws.

Specific attempt- FAIL.
even a gap in income- FAIL.
benefiting only the less wealthy group, at the expense of the wealthier group- FAIL.

Nothing in the above applies to the military. Trying to insert it into the above quote despite the misfit is exactly what I was talking about before.

That's why some of the wealthiest have their own private protection, to varying degrees based on what they can afford.

That would be an analogy to a police force, not a military force. Unless that is, Balmer sends out his guys to conduct raids against Steve Jobs. But then again, Steve would probably blow up Balmer's force with a preemptive strike, cause he's cool like that... and he has access to the better technology.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That would be an analogy to a police force, not a military force. Unless that is, Balmer sends out his guys to conduct raids against Steve Jobs. But then again, Steve would probably blow up Balmer's force with a preemptive strike, cause he's cool like that... and he has access to the better technology.

So .... the police are socialist?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So .... the police are socialist?

According to you, virtually everything is!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

According to you, virtually everything is!

No. Only things funded by tax dollars that can be enjoyed equally by anyone despite paying in unequal amounts. So, only most of what's done by a democratic government. Hell, I'd even argue that the concept of *Democracy* is socialist. One vote per person despite differences in wealth? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

My point is not that there should be *more* socialism, but merely to point out that Socialism isn't the big evil that many Conservatives make it out to be, that is rooted in our Democratic societies and that it's useful in moderation.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No. Only things funded by tax dollars that can be enjoyed equally by anyone despite paying in unequal amounts. So, only most of what's done by a democratic government. Hell, I'd even argue that the concept of *Democracy* is socialist. One vote per person despite differences in wealth? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

You're simply not using an accurate or consistent definition of socialism.

My point is not that there should be *more* socialism, but merely to point out that Socialism isn't the big evil that many Conservatives make it out to be...

It's pretty clear that you're not understanding what's actually being discussed as socialism that conservatives object to, and attempting your tact of saying "Hey, since everything is socialism -even things that clearly aren't since I'm using an anything goes definition, heck now even voting is socialism - you should agree with this example of government attempting socialism over here..."

It's an old tactic, and really, not very effective.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, do American citizens receive the same share of the benefits of the American military corresponding to what they paid in? Because, it seems to me that American citizens receive *equal* benefit of the American military despite paying in *unequal* amounts.

It's a moot point, because protection can't be measured like that.

Alas, you could argue that someone who is rich (and has paid in more) gets protection for *more* assets.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're simply not using an accurate or consistent definition of socialism.


It's pretty clear that you're not understanding what's actually being discussed as socialism that conservatives object to, and attempting your tact of saying "Hey, since everything is socialism -even things that clearly aren't since I'm using an anything goes definition, heck now even voting is socialism - you should agree with this example of government attempting socialism over here..."

It's an old tactic, and really, not very effective.

Rather than simply say "no, your wrong", please explain *how* I'm wrong. That's *also* an old tactic, particulariy when one doesn't have an effective counter-argument.

Please explain how forced equality by the government isn't socialist to some degree. Please explain what is "socialism that conservatives object to" (a statement that implies there is socialism that conservatives *don't* object to).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Rather than simply say "no, your wrong", please explain *how* I'm wrong. That's *also* an old tactic, particulariy when one doesn't have an effective counter-argument.

I've been explaining how you're wrong, you just want to keep insisting the same things over and over again despite facts to the contrary.

Please explain how forced equality by the government isn't socialist to some degree.

Who said it isn't? It just has nothing to do with the military.

Your whole argument seems to be that if there's actually some benefit to paying taxes, it equals socialism.

I'd ask you what the hell would be the purpose of paying taxes at all if there were no benefit from it? Is it that you literally think that taxpayers are nothing but cash-cows to the government, with no expectation of getting any benefit from it? We exist just to fund their every whim? Oh, and gee, if there's actually a benefit to any of it- it's socialism! That's just silly and you know it.

Please explain what is "socialism that conservatives object to" (a statement that implies there is socialism that conservatives *don't* object to).

This has been gone over a gazillion times. Your whole premise of government somehow 'forcing equality' would be a good example. That's nothing the government has any business delving into, were it even possible.

As for the whole health care thing, I really don't care what label you want to apply to it, either correctly or falsely- it's a stupid idea, proposed by a government that's broke (FACT) that's put all of us in debt that it continues to add to (FACT) and that has shown no ability to reform itself, let alone anything else. (FACT).

Therefore, I and probably most other conservatives don't want it going anywhere near anything to do with power over my healthcare, my family's, future generations' health, etc. It's a rotten idea to hand something like that over to a corrupt and out of control entity like the United States Federal Government, regardless of what label (or bumpersticker slogan lunacy like 'forced equality') that anyone wants to apply to the attempt.