I can't answer that question until you respond to my #722. For the second (or third, or fourth) time on this thread I'm stating my desire to assume something in order to move the conversation forward. In other words, let's assume that my use of the term "socialistic" is inaccurate. What term should we use that is accurate?
I observed very early, here on this thread, that there's no point in having a reasoned argument if people cannot agree to common terms. If they don't, the argument devolves to a meaningless tit-for-tat . . . of which we have plenty.
Why do we need a term at all?
You described a scenario that may not even exist (loose quotes below):
• tariffs - one method that the government uses to achieve what it calls an equitable social outcomeI added the emphasis because that is where your questions puzzle me. I don't see tariffs being used for those purposes. So, if we must come up with an "istic" or "ism" label to fit your suggested scenarios, why not tell me what tariffs fit those definitions, or give me an example of such a case? Otherwise, don't we just have the government performing its constitutional duty under the commerce clause? In which case I would call it "regulation" not "intervention."• increased government intervention in the social sphere in order to achieve equitable outcomes (I assume you were still referring to tariffs here)
And remember, this all started because I was told in no uncertain terms that "managed trade" = "socialism" which is wrong in all cases.