crankyhead wrote:GrandpaGreer wrote:OK. I have to ask up front here, because I am getting the impression that you may not have had the same experiences in life or the same exposure to things or the same basic education as I have had. Are you not an American? Do you live in another country? Canada or England, maybe? Do you not understand our Constitution?
I'm Canadian, it's no secret, and while I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I understand the american constitution better than some americans do.
Yes, I'm educated. Compared to some, I'm even 'highly educated'. But I don't like to be a d*** about it, so I'll just say that I'm educated enough to understand a word as simple as 'socialism', anyway.GrandpaGreer wrote:... our Constitution provides for the protection of our country. It also provides for the infrastructure to implement that along with the delivery of mail. That is it for the Federal government from your list.
The Constitution pays the salaries of soldiers, policemen, firemen...? No, the taxpayer does. The constitution allows the federal government to socialize the cost of these programs, by levying taxes, and that is socialism, whether you recognise it or not.
By the way, I love Canada! I visit frequently on business and have some very close friends there...their kids call me Grandpa and I count them among my other grandchildren. I am on my way there this afternoon, as a matter of fact. Flying into Pearson in Toronto.
Never said the Constitution pays anything...not sure how you got that, but it doesn't matter. Of course taxes pay for it...federally for the military and locally for the fire, police, etc., but just because you were able to work the word "socialize" into your explanation, doesn't make it "socialism". If I like to commune with nature or with another person, am I a communist?
Just because you have to tax the people to pay for something, doesn't automatically make it socialism. The military as a program is not socialism. Basic safety and local infrastructure like police, fire, emergency medical protection that is established by citizens of a community and paid for by locally collected taxes is not socialism, either (to me, they seem more like insurance that the community agrees to establish and maintain by themselves).
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."