Left becoming increasingly isolated?

[russ_watters]

That's a valid point, if we start from the current state of affairs in the US. If we go back to a time when medical care existed as private industry, but medical insurance did not, then providing a government benefit would not be socialist policy, per my definition. But I grant that single payer would be socialist in the US context; single provider would be even more socialist because it would entail two industries.

Either I'm misreading this or it doesn't make sense. There's no time limit or how-did-we-get-here criteria on socialism, it is simply government ownership/control. Even if government creates the industry itself, it is still socialistic for the government to be owning/controlling it if government control prevents private industry from doing the same thing. Your characterization would seem to lead to logical problems such as:

1. The same government policy can be socialistic in one country and not socialistic in another depending on what existed before the policy.
2. If government invents an industry, then de-nationalizes it, we are left with nothing to call that.
3. Extension: A policy may be socialistic at the instant of inception, but once the government has control of an industry it is no longer socialistic because the government isn't in the process of actively seizing control.

 

[PAllen]

Either I'm misreading this or it doesn't make sense. There's no time limit or how-did-we-get-here criteria on socialism, it is simply government ownership/control. Even if government creates the industry itself, it is still socialistic for the government to be owning/controlling it if government control prevents private industry from doing the same thing. Your characterization would seem to lead to logical problems such as:

1. The same government policy can be socialistic in one country and not socialistic in another depending on what existed before the policy.
2. If government invents an industry, then de-nationalizes it, we are left with nothing to call that.
3. Extension: A policy may be socialistic at the instant of inception, but once the government has control of an industry it is no longer socialistic because the government isn't in the process of actively seizing control.

Ok, I can see some difficulty. But then you are lead to the idea that all government activity is socialist, if so much as one salary or economic transaction is involved. I guess that is where you would want to draw the line.

 

[SixNein]

Either I'm misreading this or it doesn't make sense. There's no time limit or how-did-we-get-here criteria on socialism, it is simply government ownership/control. Even if government creates the industry itself, it is still socialistic for the government to be owning/controlling it if government control prevents private industry from doing the same thing. Your characterization would seem to lead to logical problems such as:

1. The same government policy can be socialistic in one country and not socialistic in another depending on what existed before the policy.
2. If government invents an industry, then de-nationalizes it, we are left with nothing to call that.
3. Extension: A policy may be socialistic at the instant of inception, but once the government has control of an industry it is no longer socialistic because the government isn't in the process of actively seizing control.

Socialism essentially has no meaning in the USA. And in general, it is used in a fallacious argument.

The majority of libertarians, conservatives, moderates, and liberals desire a mixed economy. Mixed being that there exists a government that participates in some way in the market. For example, most argue that we need a standing military. A standing military is an act of the government participating in the market. The government buys guns, tanks, etc all from the private market and taxes its citizens and firms to cover the costs. We all generally agree that the government should provide services like traffic lights and the highway system. The key difference between liberals and conservatives is the disagreement over how the mixed economy should look. Finally, mixed economies are essentially the defacto standard in the world today.