ArrieS wrote:Wait, I'm sorry what? Do you know what socialism is? Because how you're using it isn't what the word means.
Here from the dictionary, merriam-webster.
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
You're mistaking social policy for socialism, those are two completely different things.
Social Security is a social policy that is socialist in nature, and hence not in keeping with what the Constitution says is a permissible function of the Government. According to your first definition above, Social Security is the government taking ownership of my good and administering a process to redistribute it. Flemming v Nestor answered the question of whether or not the money I pay into the program is private property: it isn't. I point to Social Security as but one of a number of things that our Constitutional Republic is doing that is socialist in nature: eminent domain (2a above), farm and green energy subsidies (2b above), any form of redistribution of wealth a-la mandated program (ACA, many types of welfare, etc fit the definition of 3 above). So no, I don't feel I'm using the word "socialism" incorrectly.
Again I think you are misusing the word here.
civilized
adjective
: marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other
: polite, reasonable, and respectful
: pleasant and comfortable
Without well-organized laws in taking care of people we would technically be less civilized.
I was using the word "civilized" to quickly summarize the host of reasons I often hear for people to argue that Social Security is not only a good thing, but something we should be proud of and fully support.
I agree, we need laws. We are a nation founded upon the concept that all men are created equal under the law. But what you pout out above is not what is presented in classes from my daughter's middle school all the way to college level. In those places, and in a good many people's publicly-educated minds, "civilized" people take care of their poor (not in your definition above), they don't wage war for resources or ideals (not in your definition above) and many other things that, again, aren't in your definition above. It's constantly pushed on us that "civilized" people use only PC language, do their utmost to not offend anybody, accept that all whites are racist just because they are white, believe in the scientific process yet accept global warming claims at face value, believe that their religion is the correct one while all others are wrong, and believe that Social Security is what is a fair and just program.
Why? Because you say so? Your very assertion flies in the face of most of human history. Only recently have people done away with ritual passages that would kill off weak children from the strong so that parents didn't have to take care of them. Spartans of course, but many cultures would leave a new born outside for a day to see if they survived.
Yep, because I say so. I am responsible to them, not to you or to anybody else. Ritual passages? You mean like circumcision? Like making them register for the draft at 18 and making them wait until 21 to drink? Like how if you're not a jock you're a nobody in high school? Like how you won't succeed unless you get a college degree? Like how so many other cultural "norms" exist that must be adhered to or else you're ostracized? No, we still have the ritual passages, they've just become more "civilized" and take a different form.
Not to mention your very argument is counter to more than half of the worlds moral reasoning. After all you gave your children life. They can't give you anything of equal value to that, so they are indebted to you. At least that's a rough and rumble summation of eastern views on it.
Morals are subjective and not absolute. If they were, then there would be only one religion and the whole world would follow it; likewise there would be only one world government, and there isn't. This would happen because everybody agrees on what's right, what's wrong, what God really wants from us, and what the best system of government is.
I don't care if my argument is counter to more than half the world's moral reasoning, the Founding Fathers did likewise and look what happened. I'm not one to just follow the herd out of the assumption that the herd is right.
And I'm not Eastern, and we're not talking about an Eastern issue. We're talking about a Western issue of a socialist program being forced upon people who don't want it. I don't like shutting up and coloring.
Your whole argument technical has no more weight than someone who argues for Social Security as a moral necessity.
True, my argument is my opinion and has no weight, which happens to weigh the same as yours.
The problem with your last statement is that it assumes that my argument is invalid and means nothing, just as somebody who is my polar opposite. But that's not true. There are a great many who argue for Social Security as a moral necessity, hell they even run campaigns based on the idea! That is the prevailing opinion. And yet very, very few people seem to feel as I do - that Social Security is a ball and chain that's keeping us from moving forward as a nation. So while both arguments may not have any technically accurate basis, one is certainly succeeding more than the other regardless.
