Another sodahead discussion on defining socialism… bear to beadfulheart:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating common market paradigms often based in state, internationally merged corporations and collective ownership which addresses the administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals through theories of egalitarian distribution and regulation of wealth………so this is the wikipedia definition….pls highlight your points of contention…..egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities?…… common market paradigms?…..thank you

Egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities. Common market paradigms.

Nice, pleasant terms. Who wouldn’t want to believe in the promise of such a wholesome, kumbaya society. The problem with phrases and descriptions such as those is that they are simply non-specific, vague and ambiguous at best. Nothing more. The problem with framing an argument or discussion about socialism is that for each person their own point of view defines it differently. You may see equality and freedom from injustice, while I may see unfair practices giving opportunity to ‘who’ someone is rather that ‘what’ someone does. Who wouldn’t want an end to socio-economic distress and imbalance? But the reality is what it is… “… inequality of some kind will always be a characteristic of the human condition.” _{W. J. Stankiewicz}

Simplified? Taking, by mandate, from those that do and giving to those that don’t, and won’t, will never GROW a strong, healthy, productive society; it will never stimulate the economy, education, health care or technological advances. In a mixed liberal/conservative/capitalist society where the poor and sick are cared for, where the middle class is allowed to make their own decisions and the successful and affluent are allowed to function as producers and economic catalysts is a society that can be healthy, potent and beneficial to everyone. The key, imo, is a centrist approach. There must needs, of course, be some redistribution of wealth to care for those who CANnot (not WILL not) care for themselves. Anything more and it then becomes the elite ‘deciders’ making decisions for ‘the masses’. Forced (so-called equal) redistribution, forced or mandatory compliance in some dream of an egalitarian utopian society, will merely grease the skids and hasten the death of America.

No one wins when collectivism or excessive liberal socialism replaces individuality no matter how pleasantly it is explained or defined.

MARKETWATCH - PRESS RELEASE

New Poll Warns Daschle, Obama: Mandatory Health Insurance Big Loser with Public; Voters Want Return on Stem Cell Research

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Dec 11, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Less than 15% of U.S. voters support, and 53% oppose, a proposal pushed by health insurers requiring every American to provide proof of private health insurance or face tax penalties or other fines, according to a new poll. The poll, commissioned by Consumer Watchdog, also found that by just under a two-to-one margin voters favor requiring a return on taxpayer-funded research that leads to new medical treatments or prescription drugs. Download the poll here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/healthcarepollmemo.pdf. [...] The poll was conducted by Grove Insight.

President-elect Obama opposed policies requiring all Americans to buy private health insurance coverage, the so-called “individual mandate,” as a candidate. Senator Tom Daschle left open the possibility of his support for the approach in his book, “Critical,” under the pretense that he is “not willing to sacrifice worthy improvements on the altar of perfection.” Unlike plans pushed by health insurers, Daschle’s proposal importantly would give Americans access to a public insurance program “modeled after Medicare.” Overall, 40% of voters say they are “strongly” opposed to mandating that “every American show proof that they have health insurance coverage or face tax penalties.”

It’s not rocket science. I simply do not understand how so many can be so blind to reality.

So all together now Pres-Elect Barry Obama PEBO’s boys and girls; come on you die-hard liberal hippies and naive left-loons…. you can do it. Sure you can, it’s not hard.

Let’s spell it first… S O C I A L I S M. See, that was easy…now try saying it. Socialism. Keep saying it, again and again. FEEL the word, accept the word; accept that it is not a groovy, feel good, pie in the sky, kumbaya feeling of communal intercourse… it is a dangerous and destructive REALITY.

After you’ve master the bad ‘word‘ then you might want to LEARN a few things about it’s HISTORY. Put the two together, socialism + historical research, and enlightenment may follow.

Again… it’s not rocket science and I simply do not understand how so many can be so blind to reality.

test test test

test test test