I guess I have to be more precise in the words I choose, because we're going to get caught up arguing semantics. For you socialism is a broad umbrella of things that would include everything from Obamacare to disarmament. The way you describe it sounds a lot like communism to me. I know there are a lot of flavors of socialism, but that is one I've never heard of. I double checked Wikipedia just to make sure that I'm not the one who is misunderstanding it, and I see there are a bazillion different types of socialism, so maybe one of those types is what you're talking about. When I said socialism, I was referring to the kinds of policies that guys like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Ralph Nader, Elizabeth Warren, Kucinich, or Noam Chomsky might advocate. Each one describes themselves differently so I though Socialist was a broad enough term to cover them all. Apparently that term was far too broad.
Yes, socialism is a very broad political theory. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, at the end of the day, socialism ultimately leads to an erosion of rights, including natural, human, and constitutional.
Even though I felt like a lot of what you said had nothing to do with what I was talking about, I'd be glad to comment on it. I believe the "tax" in regards to Obamacare is not the bill you're paying to your insurance company, it refers to the penalty that you pay for not having insurance. You said "you" a lot when you described your position on Obamacare as if I am in favor of it. I'm not at all in favor of it. I didn't like it when the republicans argued for it in the 90's and I didn't like it when the Democrats made it law. I believe you would have gotten it either way. I can easily imagine McCain signing the same thing into law had he won, and all the talking heads on the right would have praised it as a free market solution to healthcare and the Democrats would have hated it and called it a giveaway to the insurance companies. This is my theory, that both sides want to do the same thing, they just sell it to us differently.
Yes, the tax is a penalty. That does not justify the mandate in any way, shape, or form though. The government using the mentality of "purchase a product or else", is not ethical conduct, and it's surely not constitutional, regardless of what the clowns in the supreme court voted. The government cannot legally force a tax upon their people, if the only way to avoid that tax is purchasing a product. Again the supreme court says this law of "purchase of a product or else" is legal, but it simply is not.
When I used "you" it may have been because I was directed at you, or just using "you" as general terminology. It did sounded like you supported it by what you stated, so I probably used "you" in both of those regards above.
You seem awfully concerned about guns. While I do believe the UN would love to take those guns away from you, I doubt very much that either party would attempt it in this county. The reason being that the US is the biggest gun manufacturer in the world and the lobby that represents that industry is incredibly powerful and influential. Notice that Obama recently killed the small arms treaty that was being drafted in the UN. I suspect he did it not because of ideology but because of the money involved. Obama has a tendency to side with the money. I'm personally not concerned about guns because I think we're very close to making them completely irrelevant. Right now I could build a rail gun with parts in my garage. In another 10 years I could find parts to build one that would outperform the best rifles available today. So far we have no regulations involving energy weapons.
Believe me, attempts will be made. The question is, will it work? I personally don't think disarmament would work here in the USA, but then again how many people will want to end up "felons" if a gun ban is enacted? Not many. It worked in the UK, it would absolutely work here among the masses, in regards to "turn your guns in or become a felon". There would be many who would not turn guns in, and there would be no way to determine if they had guns, but that doesn't mean many would not turn their guns in under such a threat... many surely would.
Just as the US gun industry is very powerful and influential, the UN and their anti-gun agenda is very powerful and influential as well. Some of the richest people in the world, fund the UN's anti-gun campaigns/organizations. There is plenty of power behind the UN, if not more so than what's behind the US gun industry.
So let me restate my opening thought that started this thread:
In an effort to end authoritarianism in this country, I think our government would operate more efficiently if the two parties were Libertarians and Green.
This is probably true.
What we have now is not working, so a move in another direction other than more socialism, is surely a needed change.
It's quite funny how this nation seemed to work like a Swiss watch, in regards to it's fiscal and monetary policies, back in the day. Now with the ever-so-increasing use of "socialism" and it's affiliated policies, this nation has taken fiscal plummet. Things aren't that way for no reason, and it just so happens the reason is socialism. SS, medi-care, medi-cade, welfare, pensions, etc... none of that stuff lies, the numbers are right there for everyone to see. It simply does not work.
