I think you have to define what you mean by socialist imposition of govt. My reading of your post says it's simply limiting freedom and increasing the scope of govt power, in which case I can confidenly defend laws forbidding murder, or limiting the amount of arsenic you can put in something addictive like cigarettes.

Putin is the man to do this....though he may be tired of doing it so often and re-hashing things over and over again.

Like gramilaj, I like certain aspects of the control the government has over us. The FDA is good, as is the SEC (when it works), and many other programs I support. But I dislike social welfare. Welfare more than any other single thing is bankrupting the USA, and it is causing most of our debt. The majority of the debt that we have is actually Social Security. The government set up a separate agency to manage Social Security, and the money they pay out comes from US government bonds. And its only gonna get worse in time. Its sure great that everyone today is getting those benefits, because I won't be in 45 years.

Wow. That's a loaded question. Let me first ask you what you think government is because I do not have a lot of confidence you know based on your use of quotation marks. Also do you know what socialism is? I do not get the impression you do based on your assumption that individual freedom must be diminished in order to be socialist.

The imposition of government power on the individual by diminishing personal freedom is crystal clear. One increases at the expense of the other. Obamacare is a perfect example of the phrase in real life. You no longer have the freedom to choose whatever you want in health care because the government imposes it power to dictate your health care choices.

So the criminal code is socialist?

Also, Obamacare didn't diminish your health care choices. It actually expanded it.

Is the FDA good goldfinger? Is there not a "better" way to ensure food safety than employing bureaucrats who are easily captured by the industry they inspect and are inefficient and overcompensated to boot. The SEC works? I would beg to differ and hold out Barney Madoff as the poster child for the SEC not working. This is beside my point though. I asked about society, because ultimately my contention is that a taste of socialism leads to a socialist society over time.

Tiderion, a government possesses state power- control of the treasury (taxation), control of the law (legislation), and control of coercive power (police and military).

Obamacare expanded health care. Ridiculous. I can no longer forego purchasing health care. That is not an expansion.

Not one of these again, jesus christ.

Anyway, in part, it depends on your definition of socialism. I.e., some Trostkyists would call all 'socialist' countries (their quote marks) as state capitalist, or say that Stalinism is a corrupted or degenerated form of socialism.

I'm just going to wait for Putin to give his grandiose defense before I chime in here...

We all have our specialties:

When you need someone to play moderator, TGM or Kestas are the men...
When you need someone to troll a thread, mapleleaf can't be beat...
When you need someone to incessently invoke Shakespeare and Philosophy, that's me...

And when there's Socialism to be discussed, the pre-emminant defender and voice is Putin.

:)

Why do companies need waivers from Obamacare if Obamacare increased their choices? A company or union could not find an alternative because Obamacare would offer more than outside Obamacare.

I would imagine that given the fact that through the 40's and 50's we had as much of a socialist society as we have ever had in this country and yet we backed away.

Also, show me a private corporation that efficiently self regulates itself to produce at the best benefit to mankind even at it's own expense.

I defined it obiwan. The diminishment of individual freedom by the imposition of government power on the individual. That is socialism.

Tiderion, you can start your own thread to discuss private corporations. The choice here is between individual freedom creating a better society than socialism.

Well Tettle, our food supply has been much improved over the past century. Mad cow disease, e coli, etc. are much rarer occurrences than they used to be because of the FDA and its regulations. The SEC usually doesn't work though, yes, but the EPA is good, and many ,many other government regulatory agencies

Prussian, God doesn't need government to turn water into wine.

Well, Tettle, Tiderion is right. The only other thing to regulate corporations than government is the corporations themselves, and they certainly don't have the incentive to do it without the prod from the government

Incorrect. "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system." First line on wikipedia.

You are making broad assumptions that I can only ascertain are due to already held biases.

The existence of government means there is an imposition on personal freedom. Personal freedom to it's full extent is anarchy. The opposite is order. Order is created by a common bond of a people called government.

That is true Gold, but again the food supply isn't my question, society is. Denying people the freedom to buy raw milk of their own free will from another individual makes society better? That's what the FDA does, and I wonder how you would argue that society benefits from allowing that freedom of choice.

I'd be happy to start a new thread on private corporations but when you discuss socialism you are inherently debating public control versus private control.

"not" allowing that freedom of choice. Mea culpa

since you specifically phrased your question as the "idea of socialism" disregarding how loaded the rest of the question was, then my answer is yes, many people in fact can defend the idea on their own subjective terms. your question, unruly and twisted as it was, has been answered, end of thread.

No Tiderion. I'm not. I'm debating the diminishment of individual freedom in favor of the imposition of government power over the individual.

Drinking unpasteurized raw milk might cause an epidemic, for starters. Health standards are usually fine examples of civilization. Best you not argue against the CDC, a wonderful government organization.

Obviously at an end for you otto.

And again, the existence of any government is already imposing on an individual's freedom to what they will. You are not actually arguing against socialism. You are arguing against government.

No Tiderion, an individual drinking raw milk does not cause an epidemic in any way shape or form. Name one epidemic disease an individual can get an pass on drinking raw milk. Epidemic diseases are caused by a virus. Diseases from raw milk are caused by bacteria.

Tettle, have you even taken a basic introduction to US History? Studied even the rudimentary concepts posed by Hobbes and Locke? Do you understand what a social contract is? I'm just wondering about the specific level of your obviously religiously fueled, conservative ignorance...

No Tiderion I am not. I am arguing against the imposition of government power at the expense of individual freedom, and that is the definition of socialism. An all volunteer army is government power that does not impose itself at the expense of individual freedom.