Is Socialism Anti-American?

[sc94597]

bonzobanana said:

sc94597 said:

bonzobanana said:

Aura7541 said:
Socialism has already existed in America long before Obama took office. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the US military are socialist programs. Republicans have been using "socialism" as a soundbite without even considering what its true definition really is. So yeah, socialism is not anti-American at all.

US military is a socialist  program?

As a libertarian, I wholeheartingly say, yes it is. Is there a free market in national defense? No. Is national defense paid for with taxation by a government? Yes. Is it socialist, then? Yes. In fact, national defense is the most (and first) socialist market  found in the United States. The political landscape before the mid 1800's was opposed to a national, standing, socialist,  military, and was for voluntary, free-choice, militias. 

That doesn't work for me. I understand the defence of the US population from foreign invaders could be seen as socialist or protecting society but then the military can also be used in aggressive ways that can de-stabilise the world and actually be a cause of damage to that society. Also those who fight in the military you could say are potentially sacrificed  so not good for their place in society (i.e. dead).

Also the military command structure is about very powerful people at the top and bullet fodder at the bottom not really designed around socialist principles of shared responsibility or common ownership etc. Not that I would ever suggest that you could have a military force managed by socialist principles.

 

National defense is a tradeable service. The United States government, takes money from people, what we call taxation. It funds an entity, called the military, to provide the service of national defense (among other illegitimate services.) All people are entitled to this defense equally. The activity of this entity, is centrally planned. That is as socialist as you can get. Just because it has other functions, many of which are aggressive, doesn't mean it isn't socialism. In fact, socialism's basis is aggression. The collective aggresses against the individual, by taking his property. This is true with or without government. Of course a socialist will tell you that the concept of holding property itself is aggressive, depending on his flavor of socialism, but that has no basis in natural rights arguments.