Maybe these will help.Robin Hood wrote:I don't really see the distinction between federal government and state government. Surely both are government. One does one thing and the other does another thing. State taxes and federal taxes are still taxes levied on the people.freedomforall wrote:As for the second question, it is not the role of federal government to provide these things. The safety and welfare for each state should be provided by state and city government. Even the sheriff's aren't to be controlled by the federal government. Over the years many sheriffs have turned into "yes" men at the whims of Government. Right now we are being overrun with militarized cops that think they can push and shove, and give orders to anyone they want to. They throw people to the ground and beat on them and arrest them on frivolous charges, merely because they think they are all powerful. The only difference between them and city gangs is a badge and a itchy trigger finger. Some form of corruption is found in the very place one should find solace and protection. An example of this is in cops using unmarked cars, illegally, to chase down speeders and whoever else they want to stop. The use of unmarked cars is a direct violation of law, so cops break laws in order to enforce others. And they get ticked if told about it.Robin Hood wrote:Thank you freedomforall, that was helpful.
A couple of general questions:
1. Is having an armed forces paid for at the behest of the government from the taxes levied on the people a form of socialism? No. It is the duty of Government to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic invasion or harmful intent.
2. ditto education, police, fire brigade etc?
I'm certain someone can explain this much better than I, however.
Here in the UK we don't have a federal government so to speak because we don't have a federal system. We do have general taxation (central government) and local taxation (local government), so I suppose it's similar in that regard.
My point about the armed forces is that the people have no choice. The government take the money from them whether they agree or not, and spend it on their behalf in whatever way they see fit. The people don't get to decide on the size of the army or the number of nuclear warheads, or even the wars that are fought. According to the definitions most people here have applied to socialism, that has to qualify as a socialist approach.
So what I'm trying to understand is that there must be elements of socialism in every system. It seems to me that differences of opinion arise when we try to decide upon the extent of acceptable socialism, not it's presence or otherwise.
For some it should advance no further than the armed forces. For others it should include education, law and order (including the courts and criminal justice system), social security for the vulnerable, healthcare, etc.
I have my own views obviously, but for me socialism and communism are often conflated but are different animals in terms of the way they are implemented and the kind of economy and society they produce.
A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Federalist
Proper Role of Government
Declaration of Independence
Michael Badnarik - Constitution Class (Complete)