That’s right folks, government cannot exist without some form of socialism and while fellow conservative ATSers may wholeheartedly disagree and
carry the banner of "libertarianism”, government cannot exist and work if there are not some socialist policies working within it. It doesn’t
take much to realize this fact, so while folks may flame and fume regarding the horrors of socialism, history and the present day will tell us a
totally story about "socialism" and the need for it in modern society. Let’s just get to the definition of socialism firstly:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
By the definition from conservatives exclusively, socialism is any social collective organization managed by the central government. In every excuse
regarding liberals in government, we have conservatives always making accusations of socialism and "the dangers of communism". The problem with
argument is that in the past and to this day the US government has always implemented socialist policies. In order for the US to survive as a nation,
there needs to be some form of socialism in the government. Conservative presidents such as Reagan and Nixon cannot be accounted for having a
socialist free administration. I really do not need to discuss Bush jr himself, we all know the man is a full blown hypocrite to the term
"conservatism", but such iconic conservative administrations as the Reagan one still operated under socialist policies.. As did Nixon, as did Ford,
as did Bush snr. Reagan lowered taxes and ultimately put to end most of the regulation in the market but ultimately the government still operated
under socialist policies. In addition an increase of 61,000 Americans became dependent on welfare under Reagan, a socialist system to which he or any
other conservative administration had not ended.
Taxes itself in any form
is socialist regardless of whether it’s hidden or obvious. At the end of the day you are using a collective system
of money which is managed by the government and distributed across the nation. Libertarians themselves have advocated the end to the income tax, there
are plenty on here, however in place of that many here expect that tax to be added to products, goods taxes, or some even advocate a flat/fair tax.
Nevertheless the system is still socialist.
The constant calls for a strong defence by conservatives, spending half the worlds military expenditure, in order for this to even have a chance of
continuing there needs to be a collective system to pay for it off.
Whether folks choose to admit it or not, the services from the police and fireman are ultimately one of socialist structure. It would be real
interesting to have a completely privatized police force, which just would not work out.
Here’s a reply I will probably find here:
"But the Dems and Republicans are the same, it’s a conspiracy! A socialist one! Ron Paul is the only who is above socialism!
Well no, even under a Ron Paul administration, socialism will still play an important part, so unless Paul intends for anarchy nation where its
everyman for himself and its BC time period again socialism will not go away.
Paul may want to end the fed but that doesn’t necessarily mean the end of socialism, instead he actually wants to implement a new tax system
(national sales tax) to replace the income tax. Regardless of whether this is seen as somehow "less socialist" he is still implementing a collective
system of wealth distribution. At the same time he still advocates for a strong national defence at the cost it is now. Sure, the withdrawal from the
parts of the world that has US bases and occupations would provide much needed funding, but even with reduced socialism defence would have to be cut
in half. Of course I agree with withdrawing all bases and cutting defence expenditure in half, but for conservatives to continue to increase military
defence, with minimal socialist policies, is unrealistic, even for half the expenditure of the current military.
It is true that during the early 19th and 18th centuries socialism was nearly non-existent, though the conditions of that time to now is self
explanatory, although that’s and argument I will happily carry out for further discussion here. When we look back at the last 100 years, socialism,
policies that distribute wealth have always existed, in every administration, whether it’s conservative or left wing. Both the trickle down system
and the current system are ultimately still a distribution of wealth, and in that case a socialist policy.
For folks to choose one they dont
like and be anti-socialist doesnt make any sense at all.
This notion of a government virtually free of socialist policies is naive. Conservatives, libertarians, they have never had to be tested on their
arguments, and if anything the last 100years showed us that even the most conservative individuals in power have never established a system of
government not dependent of some form of socialist policy.
The argument can always be the dangers of the extremes of both left and right, but to argue and label one government of socialism, but then fail
realize the inevitably strong presence of socialism in the US government over the last century, is well highly hypocritical.
Think any of those politicians are serious when they speak negatively about socialism? History tells us difference. This spite against all things
socialist has no standing, because we depend on socialism ultimately for our nation to survive. Like it or not.
[edit on 13-6-2009 by Southern Guardian]