I have to say, I am also waiting for this challenge to be answered by those who say that the best government is the smallest government. To me, that philosophy is just too simplistic... it's like saying that "one should always cut from top to bottom when doing brain surgery" -- really, if you're doing brain surgery, you need a *much* more sophisticated understanding of the topic. Government is a complex topic, and it demands refined and subtle minds if an intelligent conversation is going to occur about how best to do it.

Well - yeah, you should be.

no

Sure and be against the public school system, your local library and military while you're at it! :D

Yes, if you are against any socialism, you are essentially against all things the government does for all. We'd need to scrap the police and fire departments. You'd instead have to hire private security and fire protection. No more road construction. Private, for-profit toll roads if some construction company decides to build them. No FAA. No public schools. No military. No Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Think it through. Things would be so wonderful if we could just get rid of all socialism. But since most Americans aren't willing to do that, one could always move to a country where they already got rid off all those horrible government programs. Enjoy the splendor of Somalia.

I'm not against social programs, I'm against social programs that rob Peter to pay Paul. I'll be the first to admit socialism is a concept that is not well defined. It means different things to different people. But I don't think anyone is arguing that a capitalist system can't have any social programs. If it didn't, what would the government even consist of? If you're against all government, you're an anarchist, not a capitalist.

Socialism is man exploiting man, capitalism is just the opposite............

hehe Why yes...public schools and the health department too!

The "socialism" that many Conservatives seem to be against- is one in which they have to abide by the same rules that everyone else has to as well.

No, goofball.

Yeah.

Absolutely so. You should also be against public education for the masses, state subsidized and controlled universities, student grants, subsidized student loans, job training, GI Bills, 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, minimum wage, workplace safety laws, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, extra health care programs for kids that don't qualify for medicaid, progressive taxes, laws against pollution, laws against corporate fraud, public transportation, public streets and highways, public utilities, a public space exploration organization, public housing, government armed forces, etc, etc. So, you see, we've been living with socialism for a long, long time.

No. It is inaccurate to label police as a socialist function. The protection of citizenry is a function of all forms of government. The difference between economic systems is who controls the means of production, not “does the government employ officers to carry out its function.” Put more simply: police services are not socialist function for the same reason that having a president or congress is not a socialist function.

I'll assume you're an American citizen in my answer. Socialism, capitalism, communism and probably a few other "isms" we've not heard much about are ECONOMIC systems. It's true that government can influence, or even decide, which system is followed, but as an American citizen, the question need not be so complicated. Why not? Because the primary function of government, no matter what economic system is followed, is to protect the citizens and to punish evil. Police and fire departments easily fit into those categories. The US Constitution provides for the "common defense", by which government expenditures for police, fire and national defense are allowable. Those three things are among the few that our Federal government has as constitutional duties. We can argue all day long, on a program by program basis, about what is constitutional, and that's fine, because things change as time marches along. Recently, I was part of an online discussion where the use of federal money for the Interstate Highway system was called "socialist", and anyone who claimed to be against socialism but approved of the Interstate Highway system was a hypocrite. Of course, the primary argument against that line of thinking is that the Interstate Highway system was intended for national defense; secondly, it does provide benefit to all (unlike many "socialist" programs). Whatever the answer to a specific question (concerning government programs), the following axiom should always be observed: Government should ONLY do what only government CAN do. That narrows the list considerably. Let the socialist apologists point fingers all day.