Teeqoz said:
I never assumed you meant that taxing was socialist, I just made you aware of the huge flaw in your definition of socialism, as your definition would imply that. When your own definition leads to contradictions and absurd claims, there's something wrong with it. Since we both agree that taxing is normal and not inherently socialist, that means it's your definition of socialism (which for that matter has little to do with socialism) that isn't good enough. But okay, you've changed your mind to "excessive taxing". How to you define "excessive" taxing? It's rather arbitrary. Some people think a 10% flat income tax is still "excessive", while some think a progressive income tax up to 45% for the highest tax bracket isn't high enough. So again, your definition isn't concise enough, because different people will have wildly different views of what your definition implies. When did it affect nordic countries' economies negatively when they applied some socialistic (by the real definition) concepts to their economy? Can you back up that claim? And for that matter, what makes you think Sander's wants to go further than the nordic countries, since you consider him socialist, but not nordic countries? |
I tried to give a summarized explanation of it for the sake of expediency but you're either not getting what I wrote so far or you're not being reasonable in what you think I mean with something.
I go by the normal definition of socialism but I also account for how it might translate into policy. Like how you would change the us into a socialist country over time. I didn't go into the whole thing or touch the surface but what I did mention a bit on, you're jumping to the extreme conclusion on or assuming the worse. To be honest, that's getting on my nerves because it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone when they're doing that shit and I don't think you're gonna stop.
