Posted on 02/12/2021 3:05:22 AM PST by Jonty30
In a nutshell, the definition of socialism is not tax and regulation policies, but whether the government says it is a socialist government. As long as it doesn't use those words, it is not socialist. 100% taxation and 100% regulatory policies and it's not socialist, because it hasn't called itself that.
Question: Is it true that it is okay in USA if someone said that they love the US healthcare system because they derive immense pleasure/gratification from seeing low income people suffer, but saying this is taboo in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?
Me: No, but it is more likely true that liberals derive pleasure from driving people into poverty and not give them a chance to establish themselves economically while liberals financially benefit from driving people into poverty.
Liberal: Very confusing at times, in the UK the Liberals are a Party towards the left of the middle ground (yes they are an official party with elected representatives), it appears that in the USA “Liberal” has quite different connotations.
Me: The term liberal, in the States, has been taken over by the progressives. Whatever connotation that it may have had is dead. However, liberals aren't quite honest about that because they deny they are socialists while pushing socialist policies.
Liberal: Socialist agenda like what? Public healthcare? Damn then out of 27 developed nations 26 are socialist. Makes you think.
Me: Yeah, like healthcare. I’ve paid over$200,000 in my working life paying for something I don’t use.
If that money had been invested, it would have been worth almost $700,000 and I could have then retired. It cost me my retirement, so users of men like yourself would have healthcare and I don’t benefit … (more)
Liberal: ohhh were all the way down there. I would wager that you could sue your prior schools for lackluster schooling.
Socialism has nothing to do with taxation, it has nothing to do with free healthcare, socialism is when the means of production has been fully nationalized, if someone doesn’t advocate that … (more)
Me: So, by your measure, the government can tax 100% of your business income and it’s not socialism because the government hasn’t called it that. You’re very easy to fool, you know that. Right?
Taxation represents how much of the economy the government owns. 0% - anarchy and 100% communism. Typically, so … (more)
Liberal: Then It’s not socialism.
Socialism has one definition, that it’s outside your ability to comprehend isn’t my fault, anarchy is by no means when the government doesn’t tax, anarchy is when the government doesn’t exist, and for your interest taxation doesn’t exist in North Korea, does that make it an a … (more)
Me: It used to have one definiton, a representation of government control of the economy. Now it has two, the government has to say it is socialist before it is socialist. According to you, anyway. The government can have 100% of the financial controls of your business and it can have 100% control as to how you run your business. It can redistribute the money all across society. It can do everything that a socialist government will do. However, unless it calls itself a socialist government, then it is not a socialist government. According to you anyway.
Taxation doesn’t exist in North Korea, because there is nothing to tax. Private business does not exist in any meaningful sense in North Korea.
This is why liberals are guilty of murdering 250 million people, enslaving a billion and starting 4 world wars. They were simply told that they were not doing bad, but good. So, it was good. As long as it was called good, then murdering 250 million people, starting four world wars, enslaving a billion people was good.
Is that why liberals don’t call themselves socialists, to hide the fact that they want socialism so they proceed to do everything that socialists do, except call themselves that?
Do NOT let them change the subject! EVER!
Liberal: ohhh were all the way down there. I would wager that you could sue your prior schools for lackluster schooling.
Your only response to this snarky remark is to bring it back on topic!
The first thing I would have said is. “You think Trump and all his supporters are Nazis, right? They are obviously NOT Nazis because they don’t CALL themselves not Nazis. Mic Drop.
The first thing I would have said is. “You think Trump and all his supporters are Nazis, right? They are obviously NOT Nazis because they don’t CALL themselves Nazis. Mic Drop.
Oops, left a “not” in there after I changed the wording. This is how it was supposed to read.
They always end up blocking me in the end, so I seem to do ok. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.