Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
There's never been a purely socialist government or economic system; all economies are mixed. NHS is a good example of a socialist program existing in a mixed economy. NHS is paid for collectively and is run by the DoH, which is answerable to Parliament, which is ultimately answerable to the people via elections.
As for the opposite.... I suppose it would be some kind of conservative libertarianism, but that's too vague to really make any kind of sense. I know people like to boil down political positions to some sort of spectrum illustration, but it's not that simple.
|
Your point was that I did not know what the term meant. I said the definition lacked precision. Your examples illustrate my point. Some terms or concepts can be precisly defined like Pi, other can not be like socialism.
Quote:
|
You support having a publicly funded and run military, right? That's "socialist". You support a publicly funded and run fire response service, right? That's "socialist". You support the CDC, right? "Socialist".
|
Yes, I think there are many legitimate roles for government.
Quote:
|
Calling Barack Obama a socialist isn't the same thing as doing research and coming to the conclusion that he has made some socialist decisions. It's fear mongering; because there are a lot of very ignorant people in the US that equate socialism with totalitarianism or fascism, calling someone a socialist, even if partially true, isn't intended to say that "this individual occasionally sees the benefit in an economic system we already commonly use".
|
I did not actually call Obama a socialist. I said he is a "borderline socialist", and I meant that in a pejorative manner not in a objective measurable manner, because I do not like the tone he is setting with his economic policy.