Aus, getting back to accepted labels for a moment, I thought that Socialism was the evolutionary step between a free-market economy and Communism. I think that's why the US fears it.

I agree with you that,



The US has anti-trust laws which were designed to break up the monopolies of the late 19th Century, which they did, but they haven't stopped companies from acquiring other companies and, in so doing, creating a kind of monopoly. The US oil companies are a good example.

The outfall of the financial market debacle has resulted in fewer banks. That's another example. Fewer banks mean fewer choices.

True monopolies are hidden to the consumer behind different brand names. I think ConAgra is a good example here. You can find a list of their brand names on Google, and there are a lot of them.

All of these things are way too complicated for most people to understand or even care about.

I think I'll stick to my definition of a social, representative democracy (as a political system) because, along with a 'mixed economy,' it's what we have.

Thank you, fine.

Then you probably object to income taxes, property taxes, motor vehicle taxes, cigarette taxes, sales tax, capital gains tax, etc.

I don't. I'm happy to pay taxes if I believe I am getting the services paid for. And I don't mind if some of it goes to help people who have nothing. Hell, my money went to pay the salaries of Dick Cheney and John Yoo and David Addington, and I'm still not complaining.

As for the rich helping to support the poor, they are under no obligation to do so. There is nothing illegal about keeping everything for yourself while people fall ill or fall on bad times, and not giving them anything. There is nothing illegal about refusing to help the poor under any circumstances. One could argue that it makes for a less healthy community, but so what? If the money is the primary thing, and that does not strike you in the core of your being as profoundly wrong, there isn't much I can say or do to convince you otherwise.

Dax, I confess to being somewhat conflicted. I object unreservedly to income taxation. I think it is nothing less than theft backed by the coercive power of government. I feel similarly about property taxes assessed on real property (land.) Sales tax, or road tax on cars, or cigarette taxes are less problematic to me on a philosophical level because they amount to taxes on behavior or transactions and comport themselves more closely with the specific powers alloted to the government in our Federal and State Constitutions.

I am going to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume you were using the generic "you" here rather than speaking directly to me. After all, you know full well that money per se if of little importance to me personally. What is important to me is individual liberty. A large part of individual liberty is respect for individual property rights. Those property rights extend to the little slips of paper coated with green ink so many value to such an extent. My objection is not to sharing one's good fortune with others and I think you know that. My objection is to the theft of one person's good fortune by the government so that those in power can use it purchase votes and yet more power.

Good points LM, and Dax I don't think any of us object to meeting the honest costs for services and REAL social responsibilities. I object to fraud in taxation and fraud in service delivery and fraud in fake social programs that accomplish nothing but lining politicians and union pockets and failing to do anything for society (and in the meantime we still have Americans without shelter and food).

LM, I disagree with you about sin taxes. I have a problem with Government seeking to single out and punish through taxation, people who are doing something LEGAL that is unpopular or worse, that Government knows it can extract a higher level of money by extortion because they can take advantage of people who are addicted or that it's simply one of life's great pleasures. (And sin taxes adversely affect the poor).

Economically, use taxes are more in line with capitalism. I think I would include real property tax because in principle, you have taken the land out of the economy and you are using it. I deeply object to the practice of piling in other taxes such as bond repayment and "fees" and "assessments". It reduces accountability. Bonds are presented to taxpayers without proper disclosure that they are TAXES, not investments. And there is the misconception that if you don't own a house it doesn't affect you. But renters get the property taxes of the apartments they rent passed onto them. And in that case, the tax is completely hidden from the renter, which is an ethically wrong practice for government to engage in. It is used to eliminate accountability and hide the real tax burden.

I have no problem with an extremely simple and totally transparent and honest tax burden. And I have no problem with a simple and honest portrayal of services and social programs. Right now it is completely untransparent and unaccountable and racked with fraud.

Red, I've asked you before where you get the backing for some of your statements, but you haven't answered. So, I'll ask you again. What's the bases for your conclusion...



Please identify the fraud in taxation, service delivery and (most especially) 'fake social programs.'

I also wonder about...



Is the income tax system itself wracked with fraud or is it the mis-use of tax monies that is often fraudulent given riders and ear marks? Is service delivery fraud the result of a whole slew of dishonest care providers (hospitals, doctors and dentists, for example) or is there fraud in the insurance companies that lower the price of services they're willing to pay to the service providers in order to maintain their profit margins?

I know there has been fraud perpetrated by recipients of benefits of certain social programs--people who continue to collect social security for long-dead relatives, women who continue to have children in order to receive aid to dependent children and so on, but is this rampant?

It's difficult for me to continue a dialogue or a debate with you when I don't know where you're coming from with your statements.