Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Do you want me to post the definition of socialism found in the dictionary and encyclopedia again and tell you how Bush has helped to govern in a socialist way? Or do you want to continue to talk in circles? Support your points or be done.
|
Again, and I am trying really hard not to be a typical academic here, but providing links to on-line encyclopedias and dictionaries is not really proving much of anything. I gave you a couple of actual books that I have read that I think would educate you more on the topic if you are interested. Some ideas are complex and can't be fully reduced to one-sentence definitions. I know some journalists call Bush a socialist, but I can assure you that most serious academics would never classify the Bush administration as socialist. They just wouldn't. Now I realize I probably can't prove this to you since for you, proof seems to only consist of posting a link, but I suppose if you are really that interested you could try contacting some leading academics and asking them so you could see for yourself.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth at all with my analogy. I really see no reason for a discussion such as this to get this heated. I made the analogy because it seemed to me (and it actually still does) that you are equating all governmental activism with socialism (and also because I just like taking shots at Pepper's Pride). That definition of socialism just seems out of whack to me. By your definition, it seems to me like you would you categorize Henry VIII as a socialist. Do you really think that makes sense?
Also, you might want to look into the whole mortgage thing a bit more. Fannie Mae was founded as part of the New Deal, and was an official government agency for over thirty years. When it was later
partially privatized (sometime in the early 1970s I think?) it was never truly a completely independent private company, so I don't know if your "blink of an eye" statement really works.
And perhaps more importantly, is it really that shocking?
Afterall, the United States Post Office has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery to private mailboxes. It is literally against the law for someone to start a business that would deliver packages to private mailboxes. The governmet is controlling, regulating, etc. all aspects of that industry, and for a large portion of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, held a legal monopoly on any sort of delivery service at all.
Does that mean that the early nineteenth-century government that authorized this monopoly (and put some private competitors out of business in the process) was socialist?
I guess my argument is that your definition of socialism seems so broad, that almost every government in history fits the description. At that point, does the word even have any meaning at all?
Also, if you wanted to move this discussion to PM, it would be fine with me. I can't imagine anybody else finding this stuff the least bit interesting.