What are Obama's thoughts on the draft?

.But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways in which a person can interpret this, but it doesn't make one feel comfortable either way.

What are McCain's thoughts?

Some people don't mind wars as long as other people fight them. At the beginning in Iraq if GWB had gone back to the nation and said all the junk he did about Saddam's nuclear ambitions which turned out to be a 'lie' and that we were going to have to re-instate the draft then maybe a real referendum would have taken place on whether invading was a good idea or not--maybe some would have been a little less gullible and a little less enthusiastic about all the horseshit he was peddling. But what we got was--no draft, a big tax cut--we could borrow all the money (that worked out really good--lining the pockets of his friends), no post victory? strategy and no sacrifice asked of common ordinary Americans--just don't even look it doesn't concern you--it will get better.

You want to win wars--you ask the nation to sacrifice and across the board--everyone. They send their sons, they pinch their pennies, they donate to the war effort. You have the entire manufacturing and industrial sector (oops!--what happened to that?--where did it go?--it doesn't exist anymore) on board from the start.

Socialism is the answer to everything, especially in war. Buck up, soldier! Country first! Freedom last!

What the hell does Socialism have to do with encouraging war?

Do you ever read your own posts?

Did you not read Obama's "share the burden" quote at the very beginning of this topic? Or do you just scan through the group's posts for my own posts?

Actually I try to avoid your posts as I try to avoid the bulk of idiotic posts on LT, as in the Conservative or few hundred religious forums.

Unfortunately, I slip up from time to time, like everyone else, and have to torture myself with stuff like this:

"Obama's "share the burden" quote.. {is an example of} Socialism."

Gee, let me see...

Don't encourage sharing ... it's Socialism!

Never pay for a friend's meal ... it's Socialism!

Never have kids because then you'll have to pay for their needs and that's ... Socialism! (Much shrieking.)

Hmmm... so, volunteering to go to Iraq is like paying for a friend's meal? That's a pretty unhinged comparison. But if that's what you've chosen for yourself it's none of my business so long as you're not focing anyone to go along with it. But it wouldn't surprise me if you found it difficult to distinguish between voluntary sharing and forced sharing. Obama's quote is ambiguous on that matter, but there's enough there to give one pause.

Socialism can be summed up as "forced sharing", or anything that is perceived as "forced sharing" is the same as Socialism?

I thought Libertarians weren't Conservatives - where did all that independent, knowledge-grounded, critical thinking (cough) go?

As for Cody's original post, it amuses me that certain right-wingers are all for preserving civilization, fighting terrorism and labelling pacifists as pinko faggots - until they actually have to do something.

No one wants to put their life on the line and so in a wealthy society with a large middle class the price of drawing someone capable into service becomes prohibitive.

And yet we need some defense.

Universal service is the only just option.

I'm not sure that Obama saying, "If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some" necessarily implies a draft codyed. I interpreted the quote as symbolic, that is to say, if our soldiers have to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, then everyone must pitch in whether it be through service in the military or through other such efforts.

What do actual military personnel think about a draft? From my (albeit limited) recollection, the few comments I've read here and there from military folk say that they prefer a dedicated volunteer force rather than a conscripted force. True? False? Maybe some of our posters who serve(d) in the military can speak to this?

Just think, if America replaced Halliburton and KBR with soldiers being paid a soldierly sum, think how much money we could save. Maybe today's high tech army requires highly qualified "special" individuals to engage in combat, but it don't take no degree in rocket science to scrub toilets, peel potatoes, scrub pans, slop food, burn sh#t, or stand guard duty. A draft could provide to the military what it has always provided, cheap labor.

Essa, the few we've had in these forums are uniformly 100% opposed to the draft. They function in a high tech army where the non-combat aspects are farmed out to private enterprise and only deal with combat issues and combat personnel. In combat, if you can't count on the professionalism of the guy standing next to you, all of your lives may be at stake.

The draft is generally for two years and includes lots of people who don't want to be there. There is neither time nor desire for professionalism.

What I've never understood, is why, with all our technology, we are sacrificing our young adults. From a utilitarian perspective they are society's most valuable individuals.

Middle Age and Up (and I say that from middle age) seem like a much better population to draw from. Even ants are smart enough to sacrifice the old.

Because then, our army of old farts would get hammered by the other armies of younger, stronger, fitter, more mentally and physically agile young people.

Plus, this isn't operation meat-shield, military soldiers are highly trained, skilled warriors. Young people on the whole learn quicker and adapt better.

One has to look at what one's ambitions are too. If we are going to fight multiple enemies such as freedom fighter and/or terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan + be ready to take on Russia over Georgia and/or Iran you're going to have a larger and larger fighting force. Whatever the all volunteer fighting force thinks in general or otherwise they are not the ones who are going to make the decision. When push comes to shove they are expected to do and not to complain. The GWB administration was pretty ambitious for the relatively small army and marine complements we had. McCain at least IMO is fairly likely to widen military operations. Affordability for all that is also a question.

I happen to agree with geneg that KBR etc. are doing things the military should be doing (as it historically has done) for itself. Of course that doesn't help out certain corporate interests who make tons of money in completely safe surroundings.

You know, this is off topic, but I've been looking for a place for this and I think the above mention of private enterprise doing what the military has always done gives me a small opening here.

McCain is beating up Obama (or tries to anyway) over Obama's desire to spread the wealth around and talks about the biggest transfer of wealth in history, or some such nonsense. He doesn't mention the fact that our government, under that staunch defender of my wealth, George W. Bush (this is Reaganomics here, folks, for all those who laugh at me for raising it) is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class, via taxation and racking up incredible debt in my name, (I think I saw a figure of $400,000/household, or maybe per person) to be redistributed to his cronies through no-bid contracts, continued privatization of governmental responsibilities, etc. and the madmen on Wall Street via tax cuts, offshore taxation laws, access to foreign labor markets, and unlimited access to the printing press, which of course raises that "hidden tax" the Republicans are so fond of mentioning, inflation.

Why doesn't Obama point this out when McCain brings it up?

#15 Nah! Young people are more agile, but technology makes that a moot point and I find teens and tweens easy to out craft. "Youth and enthusiasm is no match for age and treachery."

All right, I'll take a platoon of 20 year olds, and you take a platoon of 40 years olds. Both right out of basic training. Now give them four hours of sleep in the last thirty or so, with 120 degree heat, and now run them on a mission where they are sweeping houses for insurgents, and have to make split second decisions, move quickly and deftly, be on top of their game for perhaps 8 hours straight or longer. I bet the young'ins do better. Technology does not replace, physical stamina, keen wits, nor does it stop the aging process on a body. I don't care how good the gun is, you still have to have steady hands and quick decision making, and older people just won't have as much in that situation. Now some positions, yeah technology levels the field, but not in combat situations, not for the ones in the most danger.

"Youth and enthusiasm is no match for age and treachery"
Now, if you're talking about 40 year olds with 20+ years experience in the military, that's a whole different thing. Bring on the vets. But if you're comparing green young soldiers with green old soldiers, there's no comparison. Plus why invest the time and energy in training someone who will on average have a much shorter career? Its a bad investment.

> 13 Thanks. Hopefully other will weigh in, also.

Plus why invest the time and energy in training someone who will on average have a much shorter career? Its a bad investment.

I thought that, at least to a point, the armed forces do take in older, or slightly older, people, if they are highly trained with a needed skill or specialty. E.g., an Arabic-speaking doctor, or some such.

Yes, which is good, but I'm arguing against a draft of middle age and up citizens, which was suggested above. I say this as a 25 yo male who can still be drafted. Stick with young folk.

#19 Sounds good. No matter what, we'll come from behind. Before we're done, we'll own everything, and we'll look frumpy doing it.

2 -- "At the beginning in Iraq if GWB had gone back to the nation and said...that we were going to have to re-instate the draft then maybe a real referendum would have taken place on whether invading was a good idea or not."

Hear hear.

This is also why, if there's ever a draft here again, it had better include the ladies.

;)

Why?

Because it's easy for a wealthy Senator to sacrifice other people's children, but if there own are in the mix.

In many European aristocracies, it was expected that young men serve as officers in their respective militaries, especially during a time of war. That was true for some time in the United States of our upper class. But today, however, the upper class (and the upper middle class) does what it can to avoid military service.

I wonder why that is; why is it now acceptable for upper class individuals to shirk their military duty (if you consider military service to be a duty to begin with)?

>25 vq5p9: - There were a multitude of ways in which wealthy senators kept their sons from having to see combat during the Vietnam war. A draft will be just as unequal as it was in the past and as unequal as some seem to think an all-volunteer military is today. It's a popular thing to say that a volunteer military facilitates an adventurous foreign policy. But for many years, so did the draft.

And for me personally, I wouldn't appreciate being called up for military service so as to fight and die for some damned Ivy Leaguer's pet project.

24 -- If going to war is so necessary that boyfriends and husbands have to be drafted, I'd like to see the ladies included. People might think a little longer and harder about whether shipping their fellow citizens into harm's way is really the best solution.

And for me personally, I wouldn't appreciate being called up for military service so as to fight and die for some damned Ivy Leaguer's pet project.


Nor to protect some consort's seven houses.

#8: Well, "forced sharing" is about as concise a definition of socialism as one can get. But if the word "force" offends your sensibilities, we can always white-wash it by calling it "obligatory sharing," but that doesn't make it any less forced. But it's funny how Leftists become red meat right-wing defenders of militarism the moment it's couched in socialist terms of sharing the "burden."

#10: I don't care if Obama simply meant sending in our recycled aluminum to help the war effort. It's not about anyone being afraid of getting their hands dirty. It's about saying that I don't want to support your stupid war. You want to help the troops? Take a page out of the Quakers' handbook and help prevent people from choosing that path to begin with. What's the likelihood of politicians like Obama backing that plan, eh?

One of these days all American wars will be fought with robots and drone planes, piloted by video game consoles. Then public opinion will support wars almost casually, as a form of entertainment. Far too many US citizens think 4300 people have died in the Iraq war -- because they count only US lives.

Lunar, who is defending militarism? Your line of argument gets more asinine the more you persist: my first post asked you what the connection was between Socialism and militarism, to which you had no answer, instead trumpeting some juvenile Cold War-era definition of Socialism, and now your solution is to repeat your earlier connection as if proven beyond doubt.

By the way, before you go around screaming "Socialism", I suggest you read a little more about it beyond, say, random pdfs on the web and Republican campaign one-liners.

Jmcgarve - Baudrillard suggested we were already there during the first Gulf War: if I remember correctly, he says technologically sophisticated wars are wars fought thoughtlessly, by proxy, and relayed to us through television in simplistic nuggets, much like a video game.

This is what you get from clueless people raving about so-called Socialism: "Universal Healthcare: the Jihadists' Secret Weapon".

It is interesting to confront ignorance about what socialism is when so many books have been written about socialism by socialists, who often don't agree with each other. There are socialism(s), with different movements and actors. Why and how the Cliff Notes version of socialism (i.e., socialism for real dummies) has entered the popular mind remains a mystery to me. It astounds me that people actually believe that Obama's health care plan is socialist when the basic private system of health care benefits (attached to employment) will remain intact. Lazy minds beget lazy ideas.

1. Socialism is a multi-faceted beast, as you say, and it really is hard to pin down what exactly Socialism includes and doesn't, given its diverse and evolving 200 year or so history. But that is precisely why one should reject these moronic slogans and oversimplifications about "Socialism=forced sharing" out of hand.

2. Sadly, the majority of Anglo-Americans (and some others) are still stuck in the Cold War rut where anything associated with the Left = Socialism = Communism = Totalitarianism = Evil - it's not even a progressive scale for most but an absolute equation; and if you wish to discredit a perfectly viable idea or a concept, you simply have to scream Socialism/Communism/etc. for everyone to imagine that the very next step after the implementation of the suggested idea will be labour camps. This is the kind of discourse that still dominates the Anglo-American political spectrum, even though almost every Anglo-American is so financially and, in many respects, socially conservative that the Left has next to no relevance for the majority (I mean conservative as in family values, the moralizing emphasis on working for a living, etc. - not anti-abortion rights or religious education.) Being "Leftist" or "radical", as you pointed out in another thread, or as some of our Conservatives and pseudo-Anarchists here keep regurgitating, is reduced to being "not Right-Wing" or simply "critical of the Free Market". It's difficult to debate the differences between political affiliations, much less the various nuances within the same affiliations, when one is simultaneously trying to hack away in a jungle of misinformation. And this too would be an oversimplification, but I think it's worth mentioning: decades of Cold War propaganda haven't left Anglo-Americans with any idea of the diversity of political choice.

3. Not only are policies such as tax cuts for the middle class not Socialist but simply good economic sense, the whole capitalist framework within which the US and many Western economies operate is dependent on government-led/supported re-distribution, subsidizing and other initiatives without which the (Western) free market would never be able to function, and without which it would not be able to maintain its lead over other growing economies. I know next to nothing about economics, but I believe any economist would confirm - with or without any misused political terms - that no industry, certainly no economy, can survive for long without some form of oversight, some kind of regulatory control, some kind of re-distribution, some level of price-fixing, in brief some kind of intervention that provides the most benefit to the largest number. Policies that veer away from this fundamental understanding of good economics result in the disasters you see now, as far as I know. So it's ironic, at the least, to see people decrying exactly that which allows them to sustain a comfortable lifestyle, which they want even more of.

#31: Lunar, who is defending militarism?

Evidently, Obama is. Have you still not read the first post?

my first post asked you what the connection was between Socialism and militarism, to which you had no answer

If you can't see the connection between the "we must all share the burden by pitching in for (fill in the blank)" attitude inherent to socialism and Obama blatantly putting the war in that blank spot by saying we should share the burden of the war, then there's no level of explication that will satisfy you.

By the way, before you go around screaming "Socialism", I suggest you read a little more about it beyond, say, random pdfs on the web and Republican campaign one-liners.

Incoveniently for you, Obama is in fact taking a page out of the Republican handbook of "Country first" in his quote above, which is itself thoroughly collectivist. But if we can't talk about the connection between the socialist mind-set and Obama's view of warfare without you launching into an unrelated tirade about healthcare and taxation, you're grasping at straws. When I said "socialism," I wasn't talking about Obama's healthcare plan or his tax plan. I was talking about what he said in the actual quote in the first post above about war, now go read it.

This is what you wrote: it's funny how Leftists become red meat right-wing defenders of militarism the moment it's couched in socialist terms of sharing the "burden."

Is that really a reference to Obama? I don't know where to begin with the number of fallacies in your silly assertions - Obama, one person, is "Leftists"? Do you think Obama is a Leftist and if so, what makes him Leftist? Is asking the general population to contribute to a social responsibility the same as Socialism? Is asking for more equitable or widespread support from a population that supported the war the same as militarism? Is asking for support the same as forced sharing?

If you can't see the connection between the "we must all share the burden by pitching in for (fill in the blank)" attitude inherent to socialism and Obama blatantly putting the war in that blank spot by saying we should share the burden of the war, then there's no level of explication that will satisfy you.

I don't see the connection because there is none. Only the brainwashed and the uninformed think about "attitudes inherent to socialism", because the many forms of Socialism are not about any specific attitudes or personality types, they are about political and economic reform. The Cold War ended nearly 20 years ago but apparently the propaganda didn't - you sound like another blog pundit who thinks Nazism was Leftist because you can find the word "Socialism" in "National Socialism". Unfortunately politics is a little more complex than that.

in his quote above, which is itself thoroughly collectivist... the socialist mind-set...

Well I think I read and said enough, but let me emphasize again that "collectivist" is one of those idiotic synonyms only shallow business or political analysts use for Socialism, Communism, or any other bogeyman of the day (how 'anti-collectivist' are monopolistic, multi-national conglomerates?) and "the socialist mind-set" is another meaningless blurb excerpted from the same mantra. If and when you get past this tripe, we can have a grown-up discussion.

Obama, one person, is "Leftists"?

Oh, you can look up a few posts and find other people advocating militarism too. Your question didn't specify that I should write up a list of people in this thread. And then there's Charles Rangel...

Only the brainwashed and the uninformed think about "attitudes inherent to socialism", because the many forms of Socialism are not about any specific attitudes or personality types, they are about political and economic reform.

Yes, yes. Socialism means all sorts of special things and to you it means rainbows and happy prancing ponies. Now how many significant aspects of socialism can you name that don't involve forced sharing?

The Cold War ended nearly 20 years ago but apparently the propaganda didn't - you sound like another blog pundit who thinks Nazism was Leftist because you can find the word "Socialism" in "National Socialism".

So now we go from socialism meaning "reform" to socialism being nothing but a term out of Cold War propaganda. "Reform" or libel? I guess you like to change definitions to suit the time of day. And I know you'd love to pigeon-hole me into seeming like a cold warrior right-winger, but it'll never happen. You just don't like it when I criticize your side of the political spectrum by associating socialism with militarism. Hate to break it to you, but the right-wingers don't have a monopoly on militarism. Politics is more complex than that, you know.

Well I think I read and said enough, but let me emphasize again that "collectivist" is one of those idiotic synonyms...

Oh, words you don't like don't exist, eh? Very "grown-up" of you. If you can't talk about things like collectivism without throwing a tantrum over not knowing what it means, why do you bother?

Lunar, please explain to me what aspects of Socialist policies in Scandinavian countries require "forced sharing". I think you might need to begin with some explanation of sharing beyond "paying taxes." Of course, if that is indeed your idea of "forced sharing" and we have to return to jejune "Government is Evil" slogans, there is no point in continuing.

So now we go from socialism meaning "reform" to socialism being nothing but a term out of Cold War propaganda.

Please put a little effort into reading my posts and thinking before you reply. It is your equation of any thing perceived as "sharing" to Socialism that is an element of Cold War propaganda.

If you can't talk about things like collectivism without throwing a tantrum over not knowing what it means, why do you bother?

Because it doesn't mean anything at all in the above context. Democracy is collectivist, like corporate culture, like public religious rituals such as going to church, like adolescent-libertarian paradises in which a neighbourhood agrees on set of rules for its own community and prays nothing will go wrong; calling something collectivist pejoratively, and then equating the negative aspects of said collectivism to Socialism, is the kind of meaningless analogy that appeals to self-labelled experts such as Fox News commentators who are better described as charlatans or just morons. I am calling you out on this analogy because you claim to have a critical, independent and/or non-partisan thought process, but like so many "independents", your arguments mirror the dismal shallowness of Conservative talk shows.

Existanai, let's work for a moment with this idea that "forced sharing" is "socialist." So when parents ask their children to share toys, this could be characterized as "forced sharing" and, hence, as a socialist parenting practice. If this is true, one can paraphrase Freud and say that socialism arises in the nursery.

No wonder there are so many bloody "Leftists" today!

Lunar must have had a bad experience with forced sharing in kindergarten.

>41 geneg: LOL!!

Gene, did you not have a problem with forced sharing in Vietnam?

Lunar, please explain to me what aspects of Socialist policies in Scandinavian countries require "forced sharing". I think you might need to begin with some explanation of sharing beyond "paying taxes."

In other words, you can't name any plank of socialism that doesn't rely on forced sharing and any that I might name that relates to taxation are out of bounds. Whether it's healthcare or social security, to you any examples are verbotten. I didn't expect you to do much better.

It is your equation of any thing perceived as "sharing" to Socialism that is an element of Cold War propaganda.

I don't give a damn what they said during the Cold War. That was before my time. Nothing they said back then disqualifies socialism as being about forced sharing. I think you just object to the definition because you have value-laden sense of what "sharing" must be. It's not the sharing itself. It's the context.

Because it doesn't mean anything at all in the above context. Democracy is collectivist...

I never claimed that more mainstream institutions weren't collectivist. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong to term McCain's "Country First" message as collectivist.

blah blah blah... Fox News commentators... blah blah blah... Conservative talk shows... blah blah blah

Again with the attempt to pass me off as a right-winger. The few times I ever watch Fox News is out of curiosity for whatever nonesense they happen to be spewing at the time. I've probably listened to more hours of Progressive talk radio in the past couple of years than I will ever hear from the right-wingers for the rest of my life. I used to be on the "Left." Don't pretend I have no idea what they're all about. If you're trying to pin the tail on the elephant, you're going in the wrong direction.

I'll ask again: How many planks of socialism can you name don't involve forced sharing? Prove me wrong, if you want.

#40 & 41: By and large, kindergartners don't buy their toys with money they have themselves earned. And no, Gene. As I've said before, I'm a former lefty. I used to buy into the whole forced sharing nonesense. And having to share the burden of a war that we don't want to support should be one step too far even by your standards.

Oh, great, another "former Lefty" who came away with nothing but slogans.

Firstly, I have no idea what exactly you mean by forced sharing. My repeated questions have led to more of the same whirling and spinning; I asked if you think paying taxes defines forced sharing, for example, but got no answer. Since it is you who keeps throwing out one highfalutin but meaningless term after another to associate with Socialism, and since you still haven't explained what exactly justifies these associations, I'll have to ask you once again to tell me what exactly you are raving against - what exactly are Socialists "forced to share" and how?

Secondly, it is hard to pin down what exactly defines Socialism now. It is certainly nothing to be cowering in fear of, however: there are several mainstream political parties in power around the world whose basic platform is Socialist. I voted for the New Democratic Party in Canada this election, which increased its representation in the House of Commons. Here is an outline of its platform. Please tell me exactly requires forced sharing, in your view, among these following policies:

environmental protection
national water safety standards
increasing corporate taxes
reducing poverty in Canada
human rights protection
expanded high-quality public transportation
public health care including expanded dental and prescription drug coverage
progressive taxation reform
social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assists their re-entry to the work force
gender equality and equal rights for gays, lesbians, and minorities
reform the un-elected Senate and ensure more proportional representation
workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to at least keep up with the cost of living
Aboriginal treaty, land, and constitutional rights
balanced budgets
a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action
renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
one wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs

You can get a much more detailed, 46 page pdf from the party website. Click here to download it.

Please be specific in your reply.

The Indian National Congress, the "largest democratic party" in the world - as they bill themselves - is based on a Socialist platform. You can look at their policies on their website (enter the English language site, scroll to bottom of main page, and click on "Common Minimum Programme".) A long list, but again, feel free to point out which of those you think constitute forced sharing, and how they represent "the attitudes of collectivism" and "the socialist mind-set".

The Swedish Social Democratic Party has been in power through most of the 20th century. There is a fairly exhaustive description of their policies at Wikipedia. Here's an excerpt:

many of the aspects of the social democratic welfare state continued to function at a high level, due in no small part to the high rate of unionization in Sweden, the independence of unions in wage-setting, and the exemplary competency of the feminized public sector workforce, as well as widespread public support. The Social Democrats initiated studies on the effects of the neoliberal changes, and the dismally-regressive picture that emerged from those findings allowed the party to reduce many tax expenditures, slightly increase taxes on high income-earners, and significantly reduce taxes on food. The Social Democratic Finance Minister increased spending on child support and continued to pay down the public debt. By 1998 the Swedish macro-economy recovered from the 1980s industrial restructuring and the currency policy excesses. At the turn of the twenty-first century, Sweden has a well-regarded, generally robust economy, and the average quality of life, after government transfers, is very high, inequality is low (the Gini coefficient is .28), and social mobility is high (compared to the affluent Anglo-American and Catholic countries).

The Social Democratic Party pursues environmentalist and feminist policies which promote healthful and humane conditions. Feminist policies formed and implemented by the Social Democratic Party and the Left Party and the Greens (which made an arrangement with the Social democrats to support the government, while not forming a coalition), include paid maternity and paternity leave, high employment for women in the public sector, combining flexible work with living wages and benefits, providing public support (still to an insufficient degree) for women in their traditional responsibilities for care giving, and policies to stimulate women's political participation and leadership. Reviewing policies and institutional practices for their impact on women had become common in social democratic governance.

The legacy of Social Democratic Party governance in Sweden is widely regarded as increasing the quality of life, naturally among those who benefit directly from an affluent, low-inequality society, but even among the wealthy. One Volvo executive admitted that a strong social welfare state, like the Swedish, helps finance a quality of life that low individual taxes cannot. When faced with the question, "Why don't you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S.", he responded, "Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o'clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here... and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I'm not really sure I would be any better off."

The Norwegian Labour party is in power currently. The Social Democrats have usually been the most popular in Denmark. The Spanish Socialist Worker's Party leads the country. The Australian Labour party is in power in Australia. It is a Social Democratic party; partly comprised of a right-wing body, and partly of the Socialist Left. They are a member of the Socialist International. In fact, a quick look at the list on that page should give you a good idea of the diversity and widespread popularity of (weak or strong) Socialist platforms.

Anyway, I would love to hear about the ""attitudes inherent to socialism" that all these parties or their respective national populations share. Please be specific in your reply.

I understand what he means, even though you can twist the words. During the war in VietNam (also undeclared) the draft included those who could not afford college and could not find jobs. Many of those were blacks. Was that fair? No. If the draft is re-instituted, it has to be fair. I, for one, am surprised we do not have a draft after 5+ years of war. We still are sending the poor to fight our wars.
I'd like to know the source of your quote. It carries more weight if you can verify where and when it was said. Otherwise it is hearsay.
What I Have heard Obama say is that a system of national service should be available, and even mandatory, for our nation to restore its infrastructure, its integrity, its service to our population and cities, to train young people in service and leadership and allow them to mature in a structure rather than on the streets after dropping out of school.
This country sorely needs a new direction, and Obama can help lead us there.

More "forced sharing"!

Christian Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

oh, my, someone would like to go back on topic. Remarkable. I'd love to continue following the discussion re: socialism and maybe a thread of its own could be started.

Sorry, maggie. You know how it gets.

Obama's point is a little ambiguous, but, if I understood him, he is saying that war should only be undertaken as a shared sacrifice. No citizen should be given the idea that it will occur without their shouldering some of the burden and risk. There is nothing socialistic about this idea -- Winston Churchill certainly believed this, for example. Obama's position is a reaction to the Bush approach: You never ask anything of the citizenry except for their belief and trust.

All states have forced sharing. Try driving in a country where there is no forced sharing of the road. (But be very very careful when you do.) In an anarchist society, perhaps there would be no forced sharing, but I doubt it. Extortion is extremely common in the absence of state authority.

I do agree with some who say that Obama is too much of a militarist. He has very naive ideas about what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, or what might be achieved via military incursions in Pakistan. Obama is not far from the center of US public opinion on this ... which makes him far too militaristic, IMHO.

#45: I asked if you think paying taxes defines forced sharing, for example, but got no answer.

You asked no such thing. You said:

"I think you might need to begin with some explanation of sharing beyond "paying taxes."

So you already conceded that paying taxes itself was forced sharing.

... and since you still haven't explained what exactly justifies these associations, I'll have to ask you once again to tell me what exactly you are raving against - what exactly are Socialists "forced to share" and how?

Are you suffering some kind of memory loss? How many times have I mentioned my opposition to sharing the burden of a war I don't agree with? Or are you going to keep on posting as if I never repeated that previous sentence for the umpteenth time?

Secondly, it is hard to pin down what exactly defines Socialism now.

So you keep saying, and now I see why. Going by your list of the NDP platform, you believe socialism can mean everything wholesome under the sun since sliced bread. Environment? Water safety? Drug reform? Really? Is that what typically pops into the heads of people who might choose to identify themselves with socialism? But let's take it one thing at a time.

environmental protection

Not socialist, but can be implemented in socialist ways, like the use of public funds (funds that people were forced to put into the pot) for badly maintained public lands. Or to build public roads with tunnels under them for salamanders to use in order to avoid risking getting run over by a car... except for the fact that intelligent racoons wait at the other end for an easy meal. So much for socialist solutions to wildlife protection.

national water safety standards

This one also depends on how it's implemented. But you're probably thinking of municipal water departments under the monopoly control of the local government and publicly funded infrastructure.

increasing corporate taxes

Ah, so the people that you don't like should be forced to "share" more than others. Don't forget that it's the end consumer that actually carries such costs of corporate taxes, so you're shooting yourself in the foot. But the quality of results is a separate issue.

reducing poverty in Canada

Another one that depends on how it's done. Poverty relief is an issue, not a position. Different ideologies might tackle it in different ways, but socialists might do it by handing out welfare checks or publicly fund "job programs." So yes, that would be forced sharing if done that way. There's also unemployment insurance that some areas force people to pay into.

human rights protection

That could be all sorts of different things. But you probably don't mean rights being protected by the limitation of government, but granted by government interventionism funded by the public. If it's the latter, it's definitely forced sharing.

expanded high-quality public transportation

So you're going to fund that with public funds and take the real estate needed by force using eminent domain.

public health care including expanded dental and prescription drug coverage

Again, funded with money that has been extracted from the public by force of law.

progressive taxation reform

See corporate taxes above.

social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assists their re-entry to the work force

See poverty reduction above.

gender equality and equal rights for gays, lesbians, and minorities

Forcing employers to have an equal share of the women?

reform the un-elected Senate and ensure more proportional representation

Rearranging the deck chairs isn't a socialist position.

workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to at least keep up with the cost of living

Forcing employers to pay more than employees would be willing to work for. While this doesn't have employers giving up money to the government, they're still being forced to give up a share of their money. And that money needs to be made up somehow, which results in a rise in the cost of living. Dog chases tail.

Aboriginal treaty, land, and constitutional rights

Sounds like stepping away from socialism if you're trying to undo the forced sharing of aboriginal lands.

balanced budgets

Budgets are money forced in, money shared out. Blanced budgets just means you share no more than you steal.

a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action

Mixed bag. Humanitarian aid is forced sharing, but anything that cuts costs, like military costs, would be a step away from the implementation of forced sharing.

renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Renegotiating what in particular? In any case, this is more corporatist than socialist. NAFTA isn't forced sharing. It's governments negotiating on behalf of their special interests.

one wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs

Not forced sharing.

So basically you didnt even try to answer my question. I asked you how many socialist planks you could name that didn't involve forced sharing and you just threw me some random positions hoping that something might stick. You could have given me the platform of the Republican party and they would probably have ended up with a similar score of some socialist things and some not. No independent thought on your part whatsover. Not a surprise. I could probably do the exact same thing with the platforms of the other parties you've linked to and we'd be back where we started. But here's how the wisdom of crowds defines socialism on Wikipedia:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Still think that these beliefs don't have the concept of forced sharing as being central? You can't have socialism without the forced sharing of XY and Z. That's what it is. Get over it. If you have a problem with Obama's view being characterized as "socializing the losses" of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're just arguing semantics. That's what he says he wants to do. He wants to socialize the losses, the costs, the burden of fighting these wars. Is that what you want? Because you haven't expressed an opinion about that one way or the other even though that's the subject of this thread. You're just here to argue over the definition of socialism and my use of the term to criticize Obama's statement. Hell, you've even gone on into making arguments about the merits of socialism. How's that for off-topic?

you already conceded that paying taxes itself was forced sharing.

Didn't you read the next sentence? Of course, if {paying taxes} is indeed your idea of "forced sharing" and we have to return to jejune "Government is Evil" slogans, there is no point in continuing.

And sadly... I was right.

See, I was being ironic with the first sentence: I knew you would trot out that silly line so I preempted it. The irony is that if you think that paying taxes in itself is a concrete representation of forced sharing, your argument implodes, because direct or indirect taxation exists in every kind of extant society, no matter how right or left wing, and taxes have been a feature of most governments since around 3000 BC; it has nothing to do with a Socialist platform.

If you say that a progressive tax is Socialist versus a flat tax, you do have a feeble argument tying Socialism to so-called forced sharing, because it is a common Socialist policy. However, it is feeble because 1) the practice of progressive taxing or its equivalent existed over 1500 years before Socialism was conceived as an ideology; 2) progressive taxes were advocated by Adam Smith himself, so it as much a capitalist belief as a socialist policy; and 3) progressive taxation is a feature in most economies across varying political platforms, so there is nothing especially Socialist about it.

Let me reduce that to a sound bite: taxation isn't Socialist.

sharing the burden of a war I don't agree with

Here's the leap of logic you keep making: 1) if you're being requested for a contribution, is it the same as being "forced"? We don't know yet either way; but you automatically presumed it; 2) assuming a draft is established, what exactly is Socialist about it? Nothing in economic or political history suggests militarism is a mainstay of Socialism, much less is it exclusively Socialist (militarism is a defining aspect of human society/history irrespective of ideology); and yet you trot out the equivalence and defend it as if it were beyond doubt.

Your argument apparently is that a draft or just "sharing the burden" is an example of "forced sharing", and since "forced sharing" is Socialist, drafts are Socialist.

Despite the fallacious analogies and the quite extraordinary fatuousness of your argument, we will look at it seriously.

Is "forced sharing" a central tenet of Socialist platforms? I described and linked to a variety of Socialist platforms so that you would have an understanding of how varied and broad-ranging Socialist policies are. Unfortunately your string of replies range from shrill and trite to glib but wrong and still don't address the essential question of why any of these policies, issues and implementations either require "forced sharing", or require it in a way that is exclusive to Socialism and not to any other political ideology. You dismiss out of hand anything that does not fit your concept of Socialism because you do not understand that Socialism is not a single-issue platform, i.e. raise the taxes!

Concisely, socialism is just social improvement for the underprivileged and the middle class - i.e. making life better for the largest number of people; and that is what all the above platforms reflect. You might say all ideologies purport to do the same - yes, but Socialistic efforts are distinguished by the fact they are primarily directed to the segments of society that verifiably and unquestionably need the most assistance; whereas Conservatism, for example, is about little more than perpetuating the status quo, and it demonstrably does not benefit the margins of society, usually harming them even more instead. Socially and environmentally, too, Conservatism is so reactionary in its maintenance of the status quo that it will try to revert positive changes or refuse to implement changes that would directly benefit all of society in the long term - c.f. civil rights, reduced emissions, etc.

Does Socialist reform involve sharing of some kind, such as in sharing income? Undoubtedly. Sharing resources is the foundation of all society and distributing those resources is the foundation of all government. Aha, you might say - but Socialism requires people to share more than in other societies. Possibly, but the question of degree was not one that you raised; you simply stated an equivalence between sharing, collectivism, and Socialism as if they all meant the same thing. Even a Conservative government is going to penalize you if you don't pay taxes, because those taxes are an obligatory part of your membership in that society. Further, society is collectivist by definition; otherwise, it would not be society but a random collection of individuals who happen to be in the same place at the same time. Conservatism is collectivism for the few at the expense of many, and the preservation of an already privileged circle. Socialism is an attempt to broaden that circle and minimize arbitrariness.

Does Socialism involve changing laws or policies so that people are obliged to comply to new and hopefully better rules? Undoubtedly. But any government for that matter involves a constant review of laws and policies, and law - under any political system - requires citizens to comply. There is nothing about being "forced to comply with the law" that is exclusively Socialist.

Did "forced sharing" never exist before, in any other society? Once again, if we look at your weak term, there is nothing about "sharing" and "obligation" that make them concomitant with any specific ideology or society or government. As I said earlier, all society is about obligatory sharing of one kind; they are based on the principle that five people working together will be more beneficial for each individual than five individuals working on their own; in return, each individual can count on some assistance from the others if necessary. Without this basic foundation, no society would have ever come about. Of course compromises are involved, but so are the various benefits that are taken for granted. Parenting, education, labour are all "forced sharing" of a kind.

Is "forced sharing" exclusively Socialist now, meaning it doesn't exist in any other political systems in some form these days? Again, no - apart from the foundational principles mentioned above, progressive taxes, drafts and a lot worse exist in non-Socialist countries. There is nothing about taxation, or even high taxation, or even progressive taxation, that makes it exclusively Socialist, as stated before. Progressive taxation does not define Socialism, by the way; it is one of the only practicala routes available, taken to equalize opportunity for the next generation, but the same feature exists in governments that would not or have not defined themselves as Socialist; and if taxes were the same across two societies that shared different ideologies, it would still be possible to pick out progressive aspects of one society that did not belong to the other. It is your juvenile understanding of Socialism that keeps you anchored to a single simplistic feature. Needless to say, equating drafts - which don't even have anything to do with the above social or economic reforms - with Socialism is ridiculous.

Is "forced sharing" the end of all individualism and social freedom? One more fatiguing time, "forced sharing" as you call it is the basis of all social coexistence. If you want to argue that people are more individualistic in unregulated market societies and more homogenous in highly regulated market economies, good luck on your alchemic adventures.

But more specifically, if you look at the widespread popularity and implementation of Socialist politics, even in capitalist countries, the answer to the above question is no. And if you think hundreds of millions of people all of whom are subject to Socialist policies share common "attitudes inherent to Socialism" and have no sense of "freedom" or "individualism", then little can change such ignorance. It is a staple of propaganda, and unfortunately, propaganda that is still very popular.

In conclusion, there is nothing Socialist about militarism, about a draft or - as in this case - merely suggesting that people of all backgrounds contribute to a war that the majority overwhelmingly supported and continue to support. Let me reduce that further:

"Forced sharing" (I hate those idiotic words now, having had to type them over and over) is a feature of all societies.
National service occurs in almost any kind of society.
There is nothing especially or exclusively Socialist about either of the above.

So please choose your words more carefully.

>43 codyed: "Gene, did you not have a problem with forced sharing in Vietnam?"

Actually, cody, I did not. I was raised in a military family, however militarism was not part of our family milieu, honor, duty, and country were, and being a student of the Greeks and the Romans believed that part of the price of membership in the greatest nation on earth was to be involved in the great shared enterprise of my time through service to my country.

Not being a hero at heart, and knowing my situation, both health wise and educationally I knew that all I had to do was sit back and wait. Sure enough, I didn't have to wait long before my friends and neighbors selected me to represent them in the military of the United States of America. No, I didn't have a problem with participating in such a great shared enterprise. You see, at bottom, I believe human life itself is a shared enterprise. That's why I have such a difficult time with Lunar, being so selfish as to see the world as six billion individuals with the great issues all being wrapped around how we keep from rubbing against each other. That just seems to me a huge mistake and a losing proposition. If I believe in just me then I have one person in six billion to look out for me. On the other hand, if we are all in this together as I believe we are, if I am indeed my brother's keeper, as I believe I am, then I have six billion people watching out for me. I like the odds better that way.

Unlike Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and a whole host of others from BushCo, they have been collectively termed the "Chicken Hawks", individuals for whom I have absolutely no respect, unlike them, when MY country called, I went.

>54 geneg:

That's exactly what I believe. Lunar's argument, given our current cultural and historical circumstances, will always be a losing proposition. There is no way to be an individual apart from communal association.

Here's a question for all you Randians: In the Fountainhead, why is it that Howard Roark has no past, why does he just appear?

Because Rand realized that the weakest part of her argument was accounting for the individual itself; as if we sprout from the womb as a fully developed individual.

#53: Didn't you read the next sentence?

The next sentence wasn't a question, so I don't know why you think I evaded it. That in the context of the preceding sentence made it clear that you already understood that taxation is forced sharing and that the second statement was merely rhetorical. You preempted nothing.

The irony is that if you think that paying taxes in itself is a concrete representation of forced sharing, your argument implodes, because direct or indirect taxation exists in every kind of extant society...

Just because taxation has a longer history than socialism doesn't mean that taxation isn't forced sharing. Your above statement is nonsensical.

If you say that a progressive tax is Socialist versus a flat tax...

I set up no such dichotomy. They're both forced sharing no matter how you cut up the tax burden. You should check your oxygen levels. Doesn't matter if Adam Smith advocated progressive tax structures. You don't see me invoking Stalin to claim that genocide is an aspect of socialism. Get your head on straight.

Let me reduce that to a sound bite: taxation isn't Socialist.

It's forced sharing. Some ideologies have different places for forced sharing, but socialism is an ideology in which it is central. Like I said before, you can't have socialism without forced sharing.

assuming a draft is established, what exactly is Socialist about it? Nothing in economic or political history suggests militarism is a mainstay of Socialism, much less is it exclusively Socialist

It's still "sharing the burden" regardless of whether you think militarism has or hasn't historically been an aspect of socialism. Obama's language clearly frames national service in that way. There are other ways to sell militarism that aren't socialist (like the "freedom isn't free" and "God and Country" nonsense of the right-wingers), but Obama chose the shared burden rationale in order to sell in to people who believe in forced sharing. Just look at the number of posters above yammering in support of universal military service and the reasons they give for supporting it. They're not saying "God wants us to do it." No one political ideology has a monopoly on militarism.

Concisely, socialism is just social improvement for the underprivileged and the middle class - i.e. making life better for the largest number of people; and that is what all the above platforms reflect.

That's what most any political ideology claims, that they have the right way to make the world a better place. The differences are often not in the goals, but in the means. In the case of socialism, forced sharing. Hell, even "trickle-down" economics claims that the underpriviledged will be made better off. Don't swallow that kind of utopian propaganda, regardless of source.

but Socialistic efforts are distinguished by the fact they are primarily directed to the segments of society that verifiably and unquestionably need the most assistance

Again, every ideology claims that. The supply-siders believe that skewing taxes away from the owners of the means of production will raise wages and lower prices for everyone. It doesn't make them right. It just shifts money around in different, but still inefficient, ways.

Sharing resources is the foundation of all society and distributing those resources is the foundation of all government.

Already addressed this above, but referencing here again for clarity. The history of forced sharing is irrelavent. To socialism, it is central, regardless of how much or how little they implement it.

Conservatism... does not benefit the margins of society

Doesn't matter. Socialism is not special in claiming to help those at the margins. Different ideologies happen to see different groups of people as being at the margins or in the most in need of assistance. They're called interest groups, and labor interests are just one among many.

all society is about obligatory sharing of one kind; they are based on the principle that five people working together will be more beneficial for each individual than five individuals working on their own; in return, each individual can count on some assistance from the others if necessary.

You continue to be blind to the difference between forced sharing and voluntary sharing. If you go read Alexis de Tocqueville, you'll find that he notes that in his time the French subscribed to the former and Americans to the latter. Your poor understanding of history justifies nothing.

There is nothing about being "forced to comply with the law" that is exclusively Socialist.

I made no such claim. I'm not claiming that any ideology has a monopoly on any particular methods. I don't really know what you're arguing here, but you put that statement in bold, so I thought I should reply to it anyway.

National service occurs in almost any kind of society.

I'm not even talking about the draft itself. It's about the way that Obama has chosen to sell the support of the military right from my very first post in the topic. Look once again at the replies above in favor of universal military service, even without Obama explicitly saying so. Because of the way Obama has framed the issue, they're willing to support an institution that most any right-winger would, just for different reasons. That doesn't make one less militaristic than the other. They just get there by different routes with different motives. There's nothing magical about socialism that makes it immune to militarism no matter how many platforms various political parties publish. This is about what Obama is trying to sell the public and which ideology he's appealing to in order to do it, no matter how much you might or might not agree with him.

Sincerely if you look at Ron Paul's (the libertarian) ideas about bringing not only the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan but shutting down bases all over the globe and bringing those troops home as well--I like it. I might not like libertarian domestic and economic policy but I'm fine with the idea of using trade and diplomacy first and foremost on the international front as he would have had it. I prefer the peaceful way. Expecting Obama to win--and most of our troops coming home fairly soon though expecting some also to be diverted into Afghanistan. Anyway there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would be less bellicose than McCain and much better on the domestic front than McCain and Ron Paul for that matter. I do think that Paul added something worthyto the debate even if his party viciously attacked him for it.

As for sharing--I'm a build your economy from the bottom up guy. Not a trickle--or top down guy. Wall St.'s millionaires and billionaires as we've seen recently have no problem running to the government when their investments are at stake--in better times they're all about 'what's mine is mine'. The wealth of this nation needs to be shared out much more equitably. I'm hoping that Barack heads us at least partway down that road.

#55: I can't speak for everyone, but I have no interest in Ayn Rand. From what I understand, Ayn Rand depended on tha fallacy that humans behave "rationally."

I'm not sure why I bother.

taxation has a longer history than socialism doesn't mean that taxation isn't forced sharing.

If taxation is "forced sharing", so is effectively anything else about living in society - schooling, traffic laws, having to wear clothing in public, etc.

Forced sharing is central to every society. Your argument that it is central to Socialism is superfluous.

You should check your oxygen levels. Doesn't matter if Adam Smith advocated progressive tax structures. You don't see me invoking Stalin to claim that genocide is an aspect of socialism. Get your head on straight.

Lunar: I think we've established your ideas and arguments are fatuous. I'm not sure how many brownie points you hope to win through peashooting, but if it makes you feel better, shoot away. Your vaporous meandering is still just that.

Some ideologies have different places for forced sharing, but socialism is an ideology in which it is central. Like I said before, you can't have socialism without forced sharing.

You can't have a society without forced sharing (more on this in a bit.) Don't take my word for it; give it a shot sometime. Go ahead, create your Libertarian paradise...

There are other ways to sell militarism that aren't socialist (like the "freedom isn't free" and "God and Country" nonsense of the right-wingers), but Obama chose the shared burden rationale in order to sell in to people who believe in forced sharing.

So let me get this straight - if a Conservative goes to war, s/he is not "sharing the burden" because s/he uses different words for the same sentiment? And anybody who talks about "sharing a burden", no matter what it is, is proposing a Socialist argument?

Although the real word is easily portrayed in cartoons, cartoons don't translate well into the real world; when your ideas and arguments are a notch above cartoonish, you should come back here and read your own posts.

The differences are often not in the goals, but in the means. In the case of socialism, forced sharing... The history of forced sharing is irrelavent. To socialism, it is central, regardless of how much or how little they implement it.

Most people are embarrassed when they continue talking about a topic about which they know nothing, but the gift for doing so is a privilege of the ignorant. As I have explained several times and tried to show you above with examples, "forced sharing" is central to any society, even a radically anarchist one (to the extent it chooses to remain a society and not simply branch out into a collection of individuals who share a label) and Socialist platforms encompass a great deal more than merely "sharing".

Unfortunately you have one precious nugget of information that was wedged into your brain somehow, and which summarizes for you the entirety of a complex, diverse history and a heterogeneous worldwide practice, so it's a bit difficult getting past that 'minor' deficiency; it's like trying to have a mature conversation with a parrot that replies "Hello Polly" to everything.

Different ideologies happen to see different groups of people as being at the margins or in the most in need of assistance. They're called interest groups, and labor interests are just one among many.

I used the word "verifiably" before "in need of assistance"; that is, when a woman can't go back to an abusive husband or any family member nearby, she is verifiably in need of assistance; she needs a shelter or a similar solution to her problem until there is some degree of resolution. Labour interests can also fall under that umbrella, such as when a woman does not get the same pay as a man for doing the same work, and so on; many of these issues however are deeply entrenched in society, and the attempt to move beyond them is labelled "progressive". The hollow part of your argument in equating the Right to the Left lies in that the right-wing have historically resisted progressive changes and continue to resist other progressive changes now; so even if they make similar-sounding promises as Socialists, their ideology and their practice is very different - as most people who know at least a little about politics are aware.

You continue to be blind to the difference between forced sharing and voluntary sharing. If you go read Alexis de Tocqueville, you'll find that he notes that in his time the French subscribed to the former and Americans to the latter.

Oh boy... Tocqueville and associations. Tocqueville himself was aware of the many complexities of his generalizations, which he was using towards building the case for his own political advocacy in France, and that is hardly comparable to your childish analogies about lawns and neighbourhood streets. It's not like the real world where, if you are born a member of a society, unless you wish to break the law deliberately for whatever admirable (or not) purpose, you don't have a choice about contributing to and sharing its resources; even if you decide to escape to your leafy Libertarian treehouse you are subject to property laws, tax laws, environmental laws and whatever else, all of which constitute being forced to share your space, your assets and your life in general in a way that is acceptable to society at large. You are welcome to protest those laws and argue their foundations but until they change you will still have to comply with the law and effect changes through a process which is forced on you by society at large. Again, don't take my word for it - go try it out yourself!

I feel as if I'm trying to convince someone who thinks he can fly that the only path between a cliff and its bottom is down.

Yes, the first associations between individuals who worked together might have been voluntary, and volunteerism continues to play a huge role in society. I'm sure most here have volunteered for something at some point in their lives; no one denies that - unfortunately actual existence in any society is still largely based on being obliged to conform in one respect or another, and having to involuntarily distribute one's money or the results of one's work is a clear aspect of that conformity. Five people working together in a field quickly develops into thirty people, some of whom work in the field, some of whom protect, some of whom go hunting, some of whom trade, some of whom must stay at home; and that develops further into an even more complex society where they are many more responsibilities, levels of responsibility, administration of responsibilities, etc. - and at some point laws have to be used to bring structure to, smoothen the operation of and ensure the perpetuation of the society; without rambling into a thesis about the nature of society and the relations of its elements to each other, the simple fact is sooner or later its members will be "forced" into "sharing", whether it is through taxes or through work or some other means.

The soldier who initially volunteered can also, of course, choose to give up at the last moment before a war and say "I'm being forced! I don't agree with the generals and think war is stupid! I quit!". Beginning with volunteering does not imply choosing to take on every aspect of a task, after all. Unfortunately the nature of the contract is such that s/he is not given a choice even though in an ideal world s/he should be. We may not like it, but this compulsory distribution of labour and resources defines any society, regardless of ideology. (In a sense, it is not even merely social but biological; the distribution of labour begins at the cellular level. I'm not using that as an argument for social conformity, by the way, but merely to illustrate that these things are more complex than mere slogans.) Once again - there is nothing especially Socialist about such obligatory responsibility or division of labour.

Your poor understanding of history justifies nothing.

Excuse me while I sputter my drink all over the keyboard and proceed to clean it. This from a person whose most astute contribution to political debate is the sophomoric phrase "forced sharing"!

A question for other readers: am I taking Lunar's posts too seriously? Should I just shrug off this witless repetition of the word "Socialist" at every turn in much the same way one shrugs off posters who insist Obama gets support because he's black?

I must be well past the point at which one no longer concedes time and effort to silliness, but I hope to save myself more time and energy later by not picking apart such facile cliches.

It's not that you're taking me too seriously. It's that you seem obsessed with opposing anything that might put socialism in a negative light. Time and time again you propagandize about how noble socialism is and that it can in no way be associated with militarism. You also seem to have a very loose definition of the word "force" to the point of claming that everything crucial to any society down to the wearing of clothing is "forced sharing," which just goes to show how deranged your posts are getting. When you do things like take a statement from me about how a conservative might not characterize their support of a war as forced sharing and then pouncing and claiming "Ah! Does that mean he's not actually sharing the burden of war?" then that suggests desperation. And it seems your biggest objection is to me putting the words "forced" and "sharing" together in one phrase. How horrendous!

You're stuck with a high-school one-liner about Socialism being whatever you call "forced sharing".

You haven't even been able to define the latter despite being given so many opportunities - you've only provided the example of taxation (examples don't define, in general, they illustrate.) Why stop there - how can you call taxation "forced" if you don't also call almost any legal obligation of society "forced" - nudists certainly believe they are forced to wear clothes; and if taxation is sharing, why not education or almost anything else? Teachers who dislike a student, a class or a curriculum should also complain about the burden of forced sharing, and to avoid your idea of Socialism in schools, every teacher should be able to pick and choose whom they teach, how often, how long and for how much. Firefighters should only go in on days they feel like "volunteering", and when Lunar's Libertarian Treehouse is on fire they can choose not to do anything because they're being forced to share time, effort and resources when they'd rather save it for someone they care about.

Neither do you follow a simple line of argument, and prance around when asked a direct question.

First you suggest that the principle of "sharing the burden" is Socialist. When I give you several extensive examples and reasons explaining why "sharing the burden" is essential to any society - religious or secular, ancient or modern, Right or Left - you switch to saying that it is not the principle, but the words used to justify the action. Hence, being asked to "share the burden", in those words, is a Socialist argument. Is it Socialist if a religious fundamentalist uses the same words while quoting an ancient holy book to appeal to other fundamentalists? Islam is Socialist then, and it demands a tax too - that seals it! Jesus, as everyone already knows, was a Socialist. And as this Rabbi tells us, Judaism prescribes Socialism. Perfect! Religion is Leftist... someone should inform all religious Conservatives.

And yes, I do have an objection to your putting the words 'forced' and 'sharing' together, not only because I've had to type them a few dozen times now, but because it sounds like a phrase put together by someone with execrable taste!

You're stuck with a high-school one-liner about Socialism being whatever you call "forced sharing".

Why do you keep whining about how short that phrase is? Do you just have nothing of substance to say?

You haven't even been able to define the latter despite being given so many opportunities

If you don't know what the word "forced" means and what the word "sharing" means, you have problems bigger than you can imagine. Hell, by the look of it, you don't even know what the word "forced" means even when the word is by itself! Even a child knows what "forced" means. But you seem to think that anything that changes what people do is automatically the use of "force." Am I supposed to go on entertaining such idiocy? Or does someone of your political persuasion really not see a difference between individuals avoiding contact with a nudist and someone who has threats of violence directed at them? One person isn't being forced, the other is.

how can you call taxation "forced" if you don't also call almost any legal obligation of society "forced"

Why is that such a problem for you to understand? It's called "law enforcement." It's right there in the word. But then you're going to say "It's not really 'force' because everybody's been doing it for all recorded history." Do you really think an argument is about making up the most childish excuses about how all the cool kids are doing it?

if taxation is sharing, why not education or almost anything else?

Not "anything else," and not necessarily "education." Public education is forced sharing. You know, the law forces you to give up some money for XY and Z, including public education. Do you really need that explained to you?

every teacher should be able to pick and choose whom they teach, how often, how long and for how much.

You say that like it's a bad thing for teachers to choose the kind of job they want to do for as much money as individuals are willing to pay them. Are you saying that teachers need to be forced to do a job even if they don't want to do it? Are you some kind of advocate of slavery? Oh, wait. Slavery has no history of people being forced to teach against their will. I'll try to simplify it and call it "forced labor." Oh, wait. Existanai doesn't understand the words "forced" and "labor" because they're too small to get through his thick skull, so I guess I'll have to "dance around the issue" until he decides to unplug his ears. Really? Grow up, man, and stop pretending you don't understand two simple non-technical words.

Firefighters should only go in on days they feel like "volunteering", and when Lunar's Libertarian Treehouse is on fire they can choose not to do anything because they're being forced to share time, effort and resources when they'd rather save it for someone they care about.

Save their resources? Are you some kind of hermit growing your own cucumbers out in the woods? Because it sounds like you don't know what it means to have a job. Since I know you're a bit slow, I'll explain what a job is: A job is when you spend your time and resources doing something in exchange for something else, usually money. Or was that too wordy for you? Am I going to have to spend the next few posts explaining to you that firefighting can be job?

you switch to saying that it is not the principle, but the words used to justify the action

Switched? They're the same thing! Principles are composed of words! Obama is describing certain principles using a certain terminology and applying it to the war. Are you really that dense?

Is it Socialist if a religious fundamentalist uses the same words

If they say that everyone must share or else God will punish them, yes. That's forced sharing even if God doesn't exist because it's still the issuance of a threat (a threat which they happen to think is real inside their superstitious heads) in order to extract money. This is different from a charity (religious or otherwise) that receives money soley based on people's good will. Charities aren't socialist because they're not threatening force against anybody in order to fund themselves.

And yes, I do have an objection to your putting the words 'forced' and 'sharing' together... it signals you don't have a clue about elegant combinations.

Elegant combinations? Who are you with? The fashion police? I'll repeat, 'How horrendous!'

What a moron.

Taxation is forced sharing. So is public education. Forced sharing is Socialist. Therefore, public education and taxation are Socialist. Socialism is collectivist. Taxation and public education are hence collectivist. Collectivism diminishes freedom and individuality. Therefore, if you ever went to public school or paid taxes you are a:

Commie without hobbies.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

>59 Existanai: "I'm not sure why I bother. "

I tried to warn you.

60 -- No. This is important. Your efforts are appreciated.

(Note: passive tense there. Only some vague collective doing that verbing... probably all socialists.)

Stop complaining, Existanai. If anything, you should be happy that you found someone willing to match you in sheer verbosity. Unfortunately, when that person finally arrives you become ill mannered toward him.

#66 Gene, what can I say... you were right!

#67 Thank you, Fullmoonblue! That offers some redemption for all the time I've wasted on this brick wall encounter.

#68 Cody - when I'm succinct, people complain about my choice of words.

#69: when I'm succinct, people complain about my choice of words.

Then I guess we have something in common. :P

Killing and bullying should be taught at an early age in school so we do not have to re-train 17+-year-olds how to kill. Teach them from the first killing is OK if the government says so and then they poor little moral consciousnesses won't be hurt when they are sent to kill in the name of peace.

Where is the beginning of the presupposition that any government has the "right," save by its own writings, to tell someone to kill another person? And then by a draft (legal force) to make them "serve?"

The government will never institute a draft because it would be the 1960s all over again. The wars will never end however, because that would endanger the politicians. You never want generals who are not busy invading other countries. They might decide to topple your government. America is no exception to this rule (or any other rule).

If the depression continues all of those unemployed and starving people can get a job by singing up (to keep them from starting a socialist revolution) with the army---they take anybody. Economics will make the army bigger and full of cannon fodder for generations.

Huh?

The military is based on sacrifice to the State. Capitalism, by its own nature, repudiates sacrifice. You work hard, not for society's benefit, but for your own. BP's influence in British politics meant that the UK let the Lockerbie bomber go back to Libya. This is good UK economic policy. The British will benefit financially from a thriving BP. BP's stockholders will also prosper. It is good sound business sense and that trumps humanitarianism.

This is unpatriotic and perhaps unjust but good capitalist economic policy. If you give Americans the choice between shrimp and cheap gas they will choose cheap gas. As unfair as this is to shrimpers it is good economic sense for the rest of the country. It is also sensible not to eat marine life from the Gulf of Mexico as you will probably get sick from it.