What is Your Definition of Socialism?

In general, I do not oppose "welfare" programs so long as they provide support only to those who are incapable of supporting themselves (or supplementing people who can only partially support themselves) due to no fault of their own, such as injury, illness, or disability.

In the US, there are populations of people who have chosen not to take advantage of the free education that is available to them and thus are basically unemployable by choice. There are others who choose to have children starting at age 12 and then turn the babies out about once a year. These people then claim that they cannot work because they must take care of the babies and therefore must be supported through welfare programs. Even more aggravating, the system is designed to encourage this behavior by essentially rewarding people for each additional child they have. These factors result in a continuous cycle of lack of education, single parent families, and perpetual poverty.

I cannot vouch for the specific accuracy of this, but I have read that on average, a person who is eligible for most of the US Federal, State, and Local welfare programs earns at least $66,000 per year for not working. The vast majority of these own at least one care, one television, a smart telephone, and many other modern conveniences. Many of them live at no charge in government provided housing.

Not to focus solely on the poor, the US subsidizes numerous wealthy businesses and organizations such as the EXIM Bank, ethanol, agriculture, oil, and almost any company that exports any product or commodity. I generally refer to these with the single label of "Corporate Welfare." I can see no justification, nor can I find any legal basis in the US Constitution for any of these programs that are designed to transfer wealth from one group of citizens to another through taxation.

There is nothing wrong with the state providing social programmes, providing it has the money to afford it. The problem with countries that try some form of socialism tends to be that they can never raise enough in tax to pay for their spending, so they borrow money, and as the chap quoting the iron lady alluded to, they often don't know how they will pay the debts off, so the money runs out. I have worked in the Social Enterprise sector, so I tend to not believe that the state is necessarily best equipped to provide social programmes. Social Enterprises, which make profit, but plow it back into the social purpose of the business, are often preferable. I might add that, during the years of the Blair/Brown government, there were a hell of a lot of things Labour were doing nothing at all about, and just leaving it to charities and Social Enterprises to fill the gaps. They also cut a lot of funding to Social Firms, the side of the sector which differs from Social Enterprises in relying on a lot of government support.

My money, my right to judge. Your money, your right to judge. No one has the legal Constitutional right in the US to redistribute money and wealth from one person to another, regardless of current practice. I do not judge anyone's life, so long as I am not asked to support it or their choices. I never have asked for government help even at times when I may have "needed it" and probably "qualified for it."

Welfare is a form of socialism as its intended purpose, as it now works, is to transfer wealth from one group of citizens to another. Some of those people have legitimate need and I do not resent helping them. Others, by their chosen lifestyle, are not deserving of our support.

Do you think taxation in general is unconstitutional ? I'd rather my taxes be used to help my fellow citizens who would be homeless otherwise than used to kill people overseas, but I don't get to decide. I've never used public resources, either.

Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment gave the US Government the power to tax income. They already had power to tax, so no, taxation is not unconstitutional.

I would make a major distinction between defending our nation and national interests and foreign adventurism. Therefore i partially agree with your preference for helping the homeless over killing people. I think what we did in the late 1970s and early 1980s when we closed most mental institutions and kicked the mentally ill out into the streets was a terrible thing and we need to do a better job of taking care of the mentally ill and homeless.

I often wonder how many Billions of square feet of empty office building and malls are sitting vacant as a tax dodge when some of that space could be taken over, converted, and given to people who need help, as long as they maintain the property?

I'm sure you believe that. However, instead of looking at a dictionary, look at a country that practices it. You'll see that the state does NOT own the means of production, but does place caps on individual profiteering.

Actually, LS is right in his definiton of Socialism; it means the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The problems with that are that common, in other words, state, ownership, means there is no competition in an industry, so it has no incentive to try to do well. Socialist states can never raise enough in tax to pay for their spending, so end up borrowing money, have no idea how they will pay it back, so bankrupt the nation. And socialist governments try to control and interfere with every aspect of your life. I certainly believe that social programmes should be provided to cater for those in need, but I don't believe the state is usually the best equipped to do it. And where it is working, such as in our wonderful British NHS, the downside is, it becomes a political football. America never elects socialists due to a fear of it, which is irrational given that they have no experience of living with it. Here in Britain, it can't get elected, at least not to the Westminster parliament (the Scots parliament and Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies are different) because we have had it, and know what a mess it made!

Excellent comment Harry.

I believe that in general, the more culturally diverse or heterogenous a nation becomes, the less likely any form of socialism is to work.

Some cultures and people have a very strong work ethic. Others do not. Often this is a result of the fact that there was no work to be had, but none-the-less, someone without a work ethic is perfectly happy to accept the largess of government that is taken through taxes and given to them. Britain has suffered as a result of substantial immigration of peoples from other, diverse cultures. Socialist policies that may have once worked to some extent no longer work at all.

Several of the Norther European nations have Socialist societies that in fact work quite well, as long as those nations remain culturally homogeneous. The Scandinavian nations are great examples of this and are often used by leftists in the US as the shining example of why we should convert to socialism. They totally miss the cultural homogeneity that enables socialism to work there and the cultural heterogeneity that exists in the US. The US may be the most culturally diverse nation in human history. Socialism would be a total disaster here.