Replies

No. Socialism is the ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. Taxation is not socialism. Public education is not socialism. Mass inoculation against polio is not socialism either. Socialism means something specific- the ownership by the working class of the means of production. No private ownership. Hint: socialism is not just anything you dislike or disapprove of. It is an economic concept.

Education is a social process which serves the society as a whole as well as the state. Only with an educated electorate can a representative republic survive. Thus, there is a great need for education. So far public education has served our nation well. With proper reform it will continue to do so. Public education is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

Educating your children even partially at my cost helps ME as well as YOU by producing citizens capable of earning a decent living and understanding the world around them and me. Nothing could be more dangerous than an uneducated populance living in ignorance without the capability to support themselves.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Hint: The term socialism is not as narrowly defined as you imply.

If you don't agree with my use of the term socialism, then replace the term throughout my questions with the term collectivism.

Education is a social process which serves the society as a whole as well as the state. Only with an educated electorate can a representative republic survive. Thus, there is a great need for education. So far public education has served our nation well. With proper reform it will continue to do so. Public education is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

If someone said:

Obtaining properly nutritious and environmentally friendly foods is a socially conscious process which serves the society as a whole as well as the state. Only with a properly fed electorate can a representative republic survive. Thus, there is a great need for state-mandated standards and state-provided food. So far, proper nutrition has served our nation well. With proper food production and distribution reform it will continue to do so. Proper nutrition and environmentally conscious food production is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

Would you accept that as sufficient argument to support having the state confiscate wealth from its citizens in order to feed all of the children within the boundaries of the state?

Here are my questions, reworded for you:

Do you believe that public schools are a form of collectivism?

If the state confiscated wealth from its citizens to provide food, clothes, or housing for all the children within its boundaries would that not be a form of forced collectivism? Why is it okay for the state to provide collectivist education but not okay to provide collectivist food, clothes, and housing to the children? Wouldn't a better term for public schools be "welfare schools" since they are meant for those children whose parents can't afford to send them to private schools or can't afford to teach them at home because both parents work?

Are you saying that a little bit of collectivism is okay? Where do you draw the line then? How much collectivism is too much collectivism? What if I don't agree? Will you force me to accept the little bit of collectivism you deem acceptable?

And a few more questions:

Are you familiar with the foundational concept of inalienable rights? Is it right to employ force to deny someone of their inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of their labor (ie - keep their property/money/etc) in order to fund a collectivist social scheme (like public schools) the state deems to be for the "common good of society"? Under that guise, what other collectivist schemes can be excused?