If it involved taking money by force from some people in order to give it to others than it is socialism.
You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.
You've just made the argument that military, police, fire and rescue wages are socialism.
No, these people are willing to pay us back - with their lives.
Now ask a scrounging welfare freeloader what they're doing to serve those who feed them. You won't get an answer. There isn't one. They ll just try to pick your pocket.
And you just made the argument that the military, police, fire and rescue responders are no better than welfare cheats freeloading off the the taxpayer. In other words you can't see a difference between a Maker and a Taker.
Let me give you thanks for one thing though. I HATE Libertarians. (See tagline). They are liberals who support open borders, pro-dope laws, pro-abortion ideals and all sorts of other liberalistic crap. But until now, I never realized the full extent of how you Libertarians and your Libertarian heroes (Hayek and Friedman) are in full support of the Welfare State.
Classic Libertarianism (such as Hayek and Friedman) or modern day Libertarianism such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson is just bat-bleep crazy. Unbelievably Insane!
Military, police, firefighters, courts of justice and select other types of government work and workers are needed to maintain a civil society by protecting it from external threats and enforcing contracts between parties without vigilantism and vendetta. These all used to be functions of volunteers (and in the case of firefighters, much of this country still is dependent on volunteers.) However, like so much else, technological and legal complexity, and public expectations of service have forced these to become professions rather than yeomanry.
These are among the LIMITED legitimate functions of government. These have been abused, to be sure, and their powers and responsibilities need to be significantly dialed back. However few will argue that they are unnecessary. Purists here will argue that a social safety net is un-Constitutional and should not be provided. I do not subscribe to this view. I think we should provide for the care of truly feeble, the profoundly disabled, and temporarily for victims of disease and disaster.
What I do not and never will subscribe to, however, is the notion I should subsidize a lifetime of bad choices, of engaging in criminal activity, of substance abuse, of a lack of a work ethic, or of a selfish and narcissitic juvenile insistence of following ones dream to become a street poet to the exclusion of goods and services productive employment.
Taxes for any non-constitutional purpose are theft. If the government has no authority to spend the monies then taking them at all is theft.
They're the agreed upon price to live in our society.
I don't recall our Founding fathers ever agreeing to support a class of parasites. Nor did I.
We don't have non-elected overlords whimsically determining how much to take from us.
You've not been following the "election" have you? We have elected representatives that make these decisions and are able to be replaced if enough of us don't like it.
Are you as naive as you appear to be, or are you just trying to provoke. Others have replied better than I can, but taxes to fund Obamaphones ARE theft.