Very wrong.

I have always been an admirer of the American Republic that was created by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights back in the late 18th century.

I make no apologies of my disdain for the ongoing foreign aggression and slow repealing of domestic personal liberties of the long since dead American Republic, now the current American empire.

Those people are dead, as is that horse you keep beating.  Your opinions have been duly noted:

You love things that no longer exist: Hawaiian Monarchy, Constitutions before the Emancipation proclamation and Miranda, and a Navy that didn't need a standing army since muskets and knives didn't require advanced weapons training. 

Conversely, you hate the things that do exist -- today -- now.  We get it.

Public services are not socialism.  You believe the memes, huh?

SERVICES that are funded by tax payers are NOT socialism for one simple reason -- they are not designed to contribute to the economy.  They are designed to provide services that are justified by the reasoning that the private sector can't reasonably do the same as well -- more often than not because there would be no profit in it.

The Constitution mandates that the US federal government fund a military as well as a postal service.  By definition, that can't be Socialist since the mandate was ratified by the individual states and codified as law.  These are services deemed fundamentally critical to the good of everyone, not a means for taking taxes only from the wealthy and providing services only to the needy.

Profit redistribution -- that's the main point when defining Socialism.  Socialists take profits and distribute them to those they think NEED it.  Whereas Capitalists give profits to those who earned it -- through investment (taking financial risks) or contributions of talent and effort.

The government never makes a profit in anything it does.  Why would they?  Congress will increase the budget if needed by raising taxes or fees.

"Big Government" is not the hallmark of Communism/Socialism.  in fact, a good number of the services you named are privatized and only funded by government, such as building roads and highways, private schools and colleges that get government funding, and even police departments who contract out support positions.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-are-schools-funded.html

Socialism is about taking private property and converting it to government ownership/control, so that the government can decide what to produce -- i.e. what's needed.  Taxes are not "private property."  They are revenue -- funds we allow our elected representatives to decide on how it's best spent.  As voters, we have the ability to stop electing people who waste our taxes on bad programs we don't agree with.  Socialism revolves around a centralized body that decides for us with no fear of losing their office over unpopular decisions.

I think you are taking a more nuanced approach to the subject than some others to be sure and there is a certain subjective nature as to what exactly socialism. It can be defined and applied in a few different ways. I think your definition is a little more precise and useable than those some other people on the right use.

My problem with the discussion of the topic is that it so often lacks nuance. Socialism all bad or socialism great, no inbetween. So if someone attacks social benefit programs under the guise of socialism bad then they should apply their definition and logic across the board consistently. Thats why I pointed out those other government services that could fall in line with some of the things he listed. There are some social programs I support and a lot that I don't, but in the end I try to do it on a case by case basis than some blanket definition.

I think you are taking a more nuanced approach to the subject than some others to be sure and there is a certain subjective nature as to what exactly socialism. It can be defined and applied in a few different ways. I think your definition is a little more precise and useable than those some other people on the right use.

My problem with the discussion of the topic is that it so often lacks nuance. Socialism all bad or socialism great, no inbetween. So if someone attacks social benefit programs under the guise of socialism bad then they should apply their definition and logic across the board consistently. Thats why I pointed out those other government services that could fall in line with some of the things he listed. There are some social programs I support and a lot that I don't, but in the end I try to do it on a case by case basis than some blanket definition.

Nuanced?  How about "less simplistic"?

That's the problem today.  People are spoon-fed simplistic ideological definitions that are easy to wrap their minds around, and they believe that's considered "fact".  The Media and politicians abandoned the truth for marketing long ago.

You always get hung up on labels and definitions because you were taught what the propagandists wanted you to learn.  Re-education has bad connotations, but that's what it takes sometimes to get people to stop believing what they know that's just not so.

Stop worrying so much about getting people onboard with the same definitions and labels, and maybe the discussions won't be so difficult. 

"Social programs" has the same root as "Socialism", so it confuses people into believing social programs are socialistic.  Once that "fact" is debunked in your head, then maybe we can make progress -- away from the simplistic, propaganda terms that make having a discussion confusing.

This is not an academic discussion.  The concepts have been around for centuries.  I understand you don't pay attention to much that happened prior to your birth, and trying to educate you now requires erasing the misinformation and Liberal dumbing-down you've suffered under in favor of real, documented facts.

Public services are not socialism.  You believe the memes, huh?

SERVICES that are funded by tax payers are NOT socialism for one simple reason -- they are not designed to contribute to the economy.  They are designed to provide services that are justified by the reasoning that the private sector can't reasonably do the same as well -- more often than not because there would be no profit in it.

The Constitution mandates that the US federal government fund a military as well as a postal service.  By definition, that can't be Socialist since the mandate was ratified by the individual states and codified as law.  These are services deemed fundamentally critical to the good of everyone, not a means for taking taxes only from the wealthy and providing services only to the needy.

Profit redistribution -- that's the main point when defining Socialism.  Socialists take profits and distribute them to those they think NEED it.  Whereas Capitalists give profits to those who earned it -- through investment (taking financial risks) or contributions of talent and effort.

The government never makes a profit in anything it does.  Why would they?  Congress will increase the budget if needed by raising taxes or fees.

"Big Government" is not the hallmark of Communism/Socialism.  in fact, a good number of the services you named are privatized and only funded by government, such as building roads and highways, private schools and colleges that get government funding, and even police departments who contract out support positions.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-are-schools-funded.html

Socialism is about taking private property and converting it to government ownership/control, so that the government can decide what to produce -- i.e. what's needed.  Taxes are not "private property."  They are revenue -- funds we allow our elected representatives to decide on how it's best spent.  As voters, we have the ability to stop electing people who waste our taxes on bad programs we don't agree with.  Socialism revolves around a centralized body that decides for us with no fear of losing their office over unpopular decisions.

As simplistic as it gets.
Much of it arguable but simplistic .

You love things that no longer exist: Hawaiian Monarchy, Constitutions before the Emancipation proclamation and Miranda, and a Navy that didn't need a standing army since muskets and knives didn't require advanced weapons training. 

Selective blindness.

The two things the former American Republic and the Kingdom of Hawaii have in common is that they were both infiltrated and illegally taken over by the American empire.  Like myself and other Kanaka Maoli who are continuing to work towards its restoration, there are many American patriots that are doing the same to end the global American empire and restore the American Republic.

Have a nice day.   

So if someone attacks social benefit programs under the guise of socialism bad then they should apply their definition and logic across the board consistently.  Thats why I pointed out those other government services that could fall in line with some of the things he listed.

That is the ignorant hypocrisy exhibited by many so called champions of capitalism in the US.  Any government funded organization or program is a form of socialism, but it is hilarious to hear, for example, the imperial American chicken hawks criticize socialized medicine and health care on one side, but call for more money for the over bloated socialized military at the same time.

In their confused understanding of the situation: socialized military is GOOD, but socialized medicine, healthcare, or whatever else is BAD.

People are spoon-fed simplistic ideological definitions that are easy to wrap their minds around, and they believe that's considered "fact".

You are spoon fed just as much imperial American propaganda as everybody else you accuse.  US is GOOD, while China, Russia, Iran, Syria, DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. are all BAD, right?

The Media and politicians abandoned the truth for marketing long ago.

Totally agree; I go even further to say they helped dupe the American citizenry with LIES in order to persecute their illegal imperial wars of aggression (i.e., Spanish mines in Havana Harbor - Spanish-American War, Gulf of Tonkin incident - Vietnam War, Saddam's WMDs -  Gulf War II, Assad gassing his own people - illegal occupation of Syria, etc.).

You always get hung up on labels and definitions because you were taught what the propagandists wanted you to learn.  Re-education has bad connotations, but that's what it takes sometimes to get people to stop believing what they know that's just not so.

You mean like the denationalization programs that were conducted by the American empire to brainwash and indoctrinate the citizenry of both Hawaii and Philippines to accept imperial American rule?

"Social programs" has the same root as "Socialism", so it confuses people into believing social programs are socialistic.  Once that "fact" is debunked in your head, then maybe we can make progress -- away from the simplistic, propaganda terms that make having a discussion confusing.

Please share how you debunked the connection between the political and economic ideology of socialism and the programs it gives rise.

This is going to be fun!    GAME ON!

Nuanced?  How about "less simplistic"?

That works too

Stop worrying so much about getting people onboard with the same definitions and labels, and maybe the discussions won't be so difficult. 

I tend to like the way science will try to clearly define terms so that what is being said is precise as possible. In one of my sociology classes we learned how important it is to word questions for surveys well else we get flawed results. It doesn't escape me that not everything can be cleanly defined but where possible I think it helps to have clearly defined terms and concepts. One thing that bugs me is when I see two people who would appear to have the same position on an issue disagreeing because one person is using a phrase or term differently than the other and they don't stop to realize they aren't  really in disagreement.

"Social programs" has the same root as "Socialism", so it confuses people into believing social programs are socialistic.  Once that "fact" is debunked in your head, then maybe we can make progress -- away from the simplistic, propaganda terms that make having a discussion confusing.

I do not believe all social programs are socialism. My comment was sarcasm since if aieahound was referring to those social programs as socialism then he must consider the other programs I mentioned socialism as well under the same logic.

This is not an academic discussion.  The concepts have been around for centuries.  I understand you don't pay attention to much that happened prior to your birth, and trying to educate you now requires erasing the misinformation and Liberal dumbing-down you've suffered under in favor of real, documented facts.

And somehow me complimenting you has led to you insulting me based on your apparent misunderstanding that I was saying having government funded ambulances meant we were socialists. Perhaps you should reread my statement again and I will throw in the disclaimer that I am by no means a socialist just so you can't somehow miss it again.

That works too

I tend to like the way science will try to clearly define terms so that what is being said is precise as possible. In one of my sociology classes we learned how important it is to word questions for surveys well else we get flawed results. It doesn't escape me that not everything can be cleanly defined but where possible I think it helps to have clearly defined terms and concepts. One thing that bugs me is when I see two people who would appear to have the same position on an issue disagreeing because one person is using a phrase or term differently than the other and they don't stop to realize they aren't  really in disagreement.

So, who decides which definition is correct when 2 people in the middle of a  discussion can't agree?

It's not about having a dictionary to break a logjam so the discussion can continue.  What matters is that YOU are able to explain your perceived definitions, that the other person also describes theirs, and you move past it knowing that YOU are now required to accept the other person's verbiage -- hopefully in a way that makes more sense now -- just as they must accept your verbiage.  There's no referee or "science" that's capable of making these decisions for us.

The concepts that we use to understand language are based on experience, perception and education.  There is no method known to man that can take a thought and implant that thought in it's exact form into another's brain while bypassing those "filters".

Climate change is a good example of how "science" can be tarnished by beliefs and biases.  There's no reason to believe we can ever have a definitive vocabulary for any other political issue.

Even so, the concrete examples from history prove Socialism has failed every single time it's been tried on a national scale.  The only way it succeeds is by implementing a capitalistic economy based on the free market and calling yourself Socialist.

That doesn't change what Socialism is.  It merely changes what Capitalism is called.

The only way it succeeds is by implementing a capitalistic economy based on the free market and calling yourself Socialist.

That doesn't change what Socialism is.  It merely changes what Capitalism is called.

So it can succeed ?
So what is Democratic/Republic capitalistic Socialism ?

And does it work?

Even so, the concrete examples from history prove Socialism has failed every single time it's been tried on a national scale.  The only way it succeeds is by implementing a capitalistic economy based on the free market and calling yourself Socialist.

That doesn't change what Socialism is.  It merely changes what Capitalism is called.

Your position above seems misguided.

Any pure economic ideologies will fail, as that is what history has shown up to this point.  There is no country that is purely capitalistic, socialistic or communistic, as all economies on this planet are some form of hybrid economic system.  Some are more capitalistic like the US, while others are more socialistic like China. 

The degree of any nation, as to how much capitalism, socialism, or communism they determine for their own respective economy, primarily depends on the amount capital and labor that is currently available, their level of technological progress, and the current wealth distribution among its populace.

Your position above seems misguided.

Any pure economic ideologies will fail, as that is what history has shown up to this point.  There is no country that is purely capitalistic, socialistic or communistic, as all economies on this planet are some form of hybrid economic system.  Some are more capitalistic like the US, while others are more socialistic like China. 

The degree of any nation, as to how much capitalism, socialism, or communism they determine for their own respective economy, primarily depends on the amount capital and labor that is currently available, their level of technological progress, and the current wealth distribution among its populace.

I'm going to loosely paraphrase a famous Economist
Tomas Sowell.
Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and controls what is produced.
(China is a good example).
Facism is when the government directs the privately owned means of production what to produce.
(This is what we have in America).
Capitalism is what happens when production is dictated by what a free market wants produced.
( This is the drug trade).
Comments in parentheses are mine.
I agree all things are Hybrid.

I prefer Capitalism. It is heartless and cruel.
But it is Freedom.
I would add just a tinge of fascism to keep it a little
safe and fair.
I think it is called a Republic.

Capitalism is what happens when production is dictated by what a free market wants produced.
( This is the drug trade).

I love your example.

The only place of pure capitalism that can be found today is in the Black Market or Dark Web.

I love your example.

The only place of pure capitalism that can be found today is in the Black Market or Dark Web.

Where the competition is either cut in for a small piece of the action or murdered?

Sounds like a wonderful system.

Where the competition is either cut in for a small piece of the action or murdered?

Sounds like a wonderful system.

Remember, pure capitalism is a marketplace where governments, laws, or restrictions do not exist.  All resource allocation in such a society is solely determined by unfettered market forces.  In this society, there are no nations, morals, ethics, or principles; everything is for sale, as caveat emptor.

Is this the type of economic ideology, pure capitalism, you wish to live under?

Remember, pure capitalism is a marketplace where governments, laws, or restrictions do not exist.  All resource allocation in such a society is solely determined by unfettered market forces.  In this society, there are no nations, morals, ethics, or principles; everything is for sale, as caveat emptor.

Is this the type of economic ideology, pure capitalism, you wish to live under?

Your hypothetical, rhetorical nonsense bores me.

 

You're here to play games, not have any sort of serious dialogue.

Bye.

   :
   :
This is going to be fun!    GAME ON!

Your hypothetical, rhetorical nonsense bores me.

 

You're here to play games, not have any sort of serious dialogue.

Bye.

I really think you need a vacation from all this.; the real FJ can do better than that.   

If not, you must be an imposter!   

I really think you need a vacation from all this.; the real FJ can do better than that.   

If not, you must be an imposter!   

You no longer offer any entertainment value.  One can only enjoy the same shtick so many times before it becomes monotonous.

So, who decides which definition is correct when 2 people in the middle of a  discussion can't agree?

Then you disagree about the definition. Nothing says you have to agree on the definition though, as long as you know what they mean when they use the term and they know what you mean when you use the term then you can still understand what each other means and not talk past each other.

It's not about having a dictionary to break a logjam so the discussion can continue.  What matters is that YOU are able to explain your perceived definitions, that the other person also describes theirs, and you move past it knowing that YOU are now required to accept the other person's verbiage -- hopefully in a way that makes more sense now -- just as they must accept your verbiage.  There's no referee or "science" that's capable of making these decisions for us.

Yup, see above, we are in agreement here.

The concepts that we use to understand language are based on experience, perception and education.  There is no method known to man that can take a thought and implant that thought in it's exact form into another's brain while bypassing those "filters".

Maybe not completely but if you look at a scientific study, what you will often see is a section where terms and words are clearly defined for the sake of the study. In laws there are sections that define certain words specifically so there is a set meaning to a word that can be referenced and applied most consistently. So even though there may be colloquial meanings to certain words that can vary, when you are applying a law or discussion a scientific data, you have a set meaning to refer to.

Even so, the concrete examples from history prove Socialism has failed every single time it's been tried on a national scale.  The only way it succeeds is by implementing a capitalistic economy based on the free market and calling yourself Socialist.

That doesn't change what Socialism is.  It merely changes what Capitalism is called.

I would tend to agree and it is also why I support in some social programs though I am strongly against an overall system of socialism., and why I pointed out that the USPS isn't socialism.

I prefer Capitalism. It is heartless and cruel.
But it is Freedom.

Unless capitalism sold you into slavery...