I would agree that not every government infringement of liberty warrants the
label socialist, although on a larger level a rose by any other name still
has thorns. It's ironic, however, that Tom chose pension reform as an
example to illustrate the point that not all government infringement of
Sorry, David, you misunderstood me (or at least what I
thought I meant).
I first tried to point out that gov't money was one thing,
not so much socialism. But SS is something else -- I guess
I should have said most folks would agree that social
security is a form of socialism, but would add that
Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do agree that government money, as it
predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of
socialism. I wonder though if most folks would agree that social security is
socialism. Americans don't like to admit that they like socialism.
Yes, many feel that, since they contributed, they should get the benefits.
This lie is pernicious. All politicians should be stating that the money
paid in has already gone out -- and money received by retired folks now is
money taxed by current workers. On the other hand, that's also
not sooo
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly
fall under the category of socialism.
Does the meaning of socialism include a time frame, so that a policy that
is socialist after that time is not socialist before that time?
What is socialism,
When I was in grad school, my wife's health insurance policy through work allowed an
employee to add a spouse for $1000 per year (I cannot remember the exact numbers, but
these are close) or add a spouse and children for $2000 per year. And it didn't matter
whether you had 1 child or 10.
Since
Now I work for the state of Texas and my policy is set up similarly.
Adding my wife costs $150 per month and adding any number of children
costs $120 per month. And her policy at a law firm is also structured the
same way.
How can this be rational?
-Jeffrey Rous
Find out whether the
Political labels are notoriously contextual. The passage of a few years
renders many labels unintelligible. However, there is something more
interesting to say. Political parties frequently co-op specific policies,
which distorts our association of a label with a policy. Example:
the two
Otherwise, perhaps people feel
a social
obligation to help support children in the society.
This behavior might also be for PR purposes. If some textile worker is laid off b/c
their labor is more expensive than foreign they might not be as likely to play the
part of Marxian victim of
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 07:41:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Socialism developed in the early and mid-19th century as a rejection of
classical liberalism,
Wrong. You seem to confuse the concept of socialism with the word socialism.
Just like classical liberalism can be traced back to
10 matches
Mail list logo
