Replies

Answer: yes, it goes to the very core of Socialism. It is the very antithesis of liberty and limited government, but obviously you have corrupted ideals and notions that lead you to advocate these very ideals.

Lol, as I've said, you live in a fantasy world that will never be. I don't agree with all the social programs we have, and certainly oppose Obamacare and further expansions of those programs. But anyone with a modicum of common sense should try to envision what sort of nation we'd have with no social safety net, and no system that provided an assured, but modest retirement for all people who've worked and contributed to a system.

Your fantasy world would be one of chaos and anarchy, with millions of elderly with no means of support, and millions of others who'd become financially destitute for various reasons. Every affluent family would need 17' walls around their houses as they have in San Salvador and other societies where the rule of law is touch and go.

And, believe me, I don't consider you anyone capable of deciding whether anyone else's ideals are corrupt or uncorrupted. The fantasy worlds of the left and the right can be equally dangerous if too many people reside in either one.

And much of your post is a bunch of straw man arguments which have nothing to do with what I have said, or what I believe. "Socialism is popular, Ward Churchill, a leftist news media." That's just your throw-ins and has nothing to do with me or anything I believe, and little to do with whether we should have a safety net or mandatory retirement income system.

Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production, and there is no private property. That is at the core of socialism, and that the actual definition of socialism. I think our government programs have already gone too far, but I also don't pretend that we are on the verge of full blown socialism.

Point #1 - I believe I've made it clear that the outlook is horrible, but I adhere to my principles and do what I can to oppose it. That doesn't mean I live in a "fantasy world," because I reject your corrupt ideals and your incorporation of aspect of socialism into your political outlook. You can lecture me all you want to about "modern" ways of thinking, a familiar tract among the Left, especially the "evolving" Constitution arguments. This is no novel invention on your part. We've had a nation without Social Security and we can once again have a nation without Social Security, because it is ridiculous to just accept your fantasies of doom. People can open a savings account and become a millionaire by the time they retire, and that alone shows a modest means to achieve comfortable, secure retirement without the Government. As for so-called "contributions," the Government never gave anyone a choice, payroll taxes are compulsory, but if it makes you feel any better the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that no one has any "property rights" to their so-called contributions.

Point #2 - Your claim that of millions of eldery people wailing in the streets and affluent people needing 17 walls around their house is the very stuff of fantasy, sir. Only the very poorest, uneducated people would depend solely on Social Security or for the most part. The dependency fostered by the Government destroys genuine altruism and civic responsibility to help such people, it further enlarges the class of dependent people destroying the incentive and responsibility of people to manage their lives, and I have no doubt that there would be many shrill voices screaming at any attempt to dismantle Social Security.

Point #3 - Once again, quit aping the Bill O'Reilly mantra. Only political relativism leads people to pretend those of us on the Right are any way similar or like those on the opposite political spectrum. Your ideals are most certainly corrupted when you believe the Government must maintain socialistic aspects of Government or otherwise the world is doomed. I'd hate to even bother examining your views on Capitalism.

Point #4 - I never used a straw man argument in the way you suggest. You claimed that the views expressed by myself or others would cause people to rush to Obama & the Democrats implying that these manifestly socialist aspects of America's federal government are popular. I made the logical point that popularity alone isn't justification or reason for me to abandon my principles. I wonder what you'd say of those who opposed Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs. As for my comment about Ward Churchill or the leftist media, I made the point that given the reality in schools, campuses, and media (among many other areas) that our side is losing and thus far has lost the debate. It does, however, have everything to do with why we have Social Security and why attempts to reform or curtail have gone nowhere.

Point #5 - I mtend to agree with your definition of Socialism, but you fail to recognize the different types of Socialism. Fabian Socialism, named after the Roman General Fabius Cunctator. favored gradualism. Social safety nets are one of the gradual steps toward achieving that end. Fabians founded the Labour Party in Britain. I was reading the other day about the head of the British Conservative Party that the government sould subsidize fresh fruits for people and provide universal gym membership. Not a straw man, just saying. It was like the quote I gave you from Reagan about Thomas saying that America would enact the socialist agenda under the banner of liberalism.