then I am a Trotskyite&quot

[sandy6565]

Originally Posted by CanadianI had a friend once remark, "If this is Leninism, then I am a Trotskyite". The issue is not socialism versus capitalism. I've got an undergrad degree in political science and have sat through hundreds of hours of debates and seminars. The issue is that redistribution of wealth, when not done in a manner equally responsible to the person giving and to the person taking is detrimental on a society as a whole. If I earn a thousand dollars this month high heel dunks , and my brother makes 999, I may give him a half dollar to equalize, and we'd both be better off. But if the stranger down the street gives him a half dollar, without any incentive beyond public duty (a concept recently invented) then he would be in a socialistic worldview as you would see it.How do you defeat the problems of socialism? Simple. You take care of widows and orphans. Personally. You don't decide the good of your widowed friend is a state requirement hot women in high heels , so that if they are destitute, it is up to those who wish to care, instead of receiving a welfare check every month taken from the pockets of those who don't know her. Another precept of capitalism is that you do not perform actions which would be to the detriment of other improvements in capital gains, unless those actions would deliberately, or not, create a legitimate difficulty for somebody. Your right to run a gambling parlor with loud music ends when noise ordinance tells you to turn out the lights and shut off the Victrola. Mr. Obama has a unique problem, in that his state's income is rarely granted by the goodwill of free citizens, but rather that he holds, enforced by statist police who are acting as agents of the police, the ability to remove capital from entrepreneurs and misers alike. Capitalism is based around free markets and freedom to do as one pleases womens nike high heels , until it causes damage to others, or potentially prevents the creation of success on others. If Obama were to raise gas taxes, you would have to pay. But he can't say, "I'm going to raise the price of cigarettes to finance overseas aid to X". That's an illegitimate use of power and privilege. If people were told that their gas taxes were to be used to pay for AK-47s for the Iraqi police, there would be a new market in bootleg gas and people would subvert the system. But democracies are furnished with the ideal that all persons are equal and if I lived in Saskatchewan or the Northwest Territories, I would still be entitled to have a way to reach my home (ie a road). If I wanted to be a hermit, I might be told to build my own road, but as far as public good is concerned (a recent conception) everybody is "entitled" to a positive output from the system they input to the degree which they input being responsibly and fairly output.I hope I haven't contradicted myself too many times. I could go on and on, but if you understand what I'm saying, essentially, gas taxes, enforced by the government are acceptable to the majority, provided they pay for roads and aren't collected for pure moneymaking capacity. In Canada they raise the price of smokes, frequently. They always say it's so that children won't be able to afford smokes. The two concepts are mutually exclusive and rather bizarre.Thomas This is the best post I have read here in a long time. You say things much better than the old fa-t geologist that I am.One thing I finds funny is how often the far right (or what I call the far right, I am biased of course) calls Obama a socialist when is no where near close to being one. Many people in Europe consider him no more a left wing/socialist than Reagan. They consider him center to center-left.Anyway, your post shows a lot more balance than most here (absolutely including my biased posts).