On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?

Oh, and I'll also recognize that some Republicans think it is their duty to oppose Democrats as strongly as possible on every issue, because all good must come from Republicans and nothing good can come from Democrats. Don't ask me to respect that.

On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:25:37 UTC+11, mswd...gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
> > >
> > Only if you really believe it. Otherwise it may be smart politics.
> It's both- I'm not in denial.
> > Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?
> Yep, let's hear the rational reasons why having a better-insured population with easier access to medical care actually hurts us. Any takers?

It hurts those who have reasons and longstanding proven opposition to more universally accessible healthcare, namely the right wing factions.

It is quite unthinkable that such opposition has and still continues to exist. There is no way it can be bad for the country, given that a heslthier country is a far more productive country. This is apart from the obvious compassionate reasons of course. But then enlightenment and education about poverty and the misery it causes, was never a Fox News item for consideration was it? Neither do the "religious" right seem to care either.

Ray Hall, Taree

It's pretty clear that "socialism" has different interpretations in the USA and in Europe. Merriam-Webster (a US company) defines it as "A social system or theory in which the government owns and controls the means of production (as factories) and distribution of goods."

However, European political parties that are comfortable describing themselves as "socialist" often have a mixed ownership policy, where some entities (e.g. post office, railways) are state owned and others are in private ownership. Wiki reflects this stating "economic and social systems characterised by social ownership", 'characterised' being looser, and continues "no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism".

So for instance, in the UK we had a "Democratic Socialist Party" just one of many with the same name - you can check the list if you have little to do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialist_Party

In the UK the SDP was an offshoot of the Labour Party, Wiki:-
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a centrist to centre-left political party in the UK. It supported a mixed economy, electoral reform, European integration and a decentralised state while rejecting the possibility of trade unions being overly influential within the industrial sphere. The SDP officially advocated "social democracy", but its actual propensity is evaluated as close to social liberalism.

So what is "social liberalism"? Here we have a term which places "socialism" closer to 'liberalism". As follows:
" Under social liberalism, the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the world. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left. A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasizing the rights and autonomy of the individual."

So let's have some disambiguation here. Frank as an economist is giving a narrow literal definition based on state ownership. I as a liberal European, on the other hand, am using socialism as "social liberalism" which is the form it takes in Europe and elsewhere. So of course, I completely endorse "the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual." I have frequently talked about "the common good" in terms of vaccination, wearing masks etc. and I am against the US obsession with the "freedom of the individual" when it conflicts with essential measures for the common good. These, as above, include "social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education and the climate using government intervention".

So let's be clear - I am completely aligned with social liberalism and my views and posts are entirely in harmony with it. I am only one of many, many people who align themselves in Europe in this way. So "socialism" in the language of many Europeans is much more aligned with "social issues and the common good". This is very clear to Europeans - less so in the USA where the term "socialism" is a pejorative term used by right wingers to justify their opposition to anything "liberal".

..

On 3/1/2022 11:25 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
>>>
>> Only if you really believe it. Otherwise it may be smart politics.
>
> It's both- I'm not in denial.
>
>> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?
>
> Yep, let's hear the rational reasons why having a better-insured population with easier access to medical care actually hurts us. Any takers?
>

If you don't think there is a reasoned argument to be made against universal tcare then it is you who are ignorant. If there are no "rational reasons" then those who are against it are either stupid or evil. End of discussion.

On 3/1/2022 11:28 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?
>
> Oh, and I'll also recognize that some Republicans think it is their duty to oppose Democrats as strongly as possible on every issue, because all good must come from Republicans and nothing good can come from Democrats. Don't ask me to respect that.

Do I really have to turn this statement around 180 degrees and if I do, will you deny it?

On 3/2/2022 1:25 AM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:25:37 UTC+11, mswd...gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
>>>>
>>> Only if you really believe it. Otherwise it may be smart politics.
>> It's both- I'm not in denial.
>>> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?
>> Yep, let's hear the rational reasons why having a better-insured population with easier access to medical care actually hurts us. Any takers?
>
> It hurts those who have reasons and longstanding proven opposition to more universally accessible healthcare, namely the right wing factions.
>
> It is quite unthinkable that such opposition has and still continues to exist. There is no way it can be bad for the country, given that a heslthier country is a far more productive country. This is apart from the obvious compassionate reasons of course. But then enlightenment and education about poverty and the misery it causes, was never a Fox News item for consideration was it? Neither do the "religious" right seem to care either.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

I think we should follow the science. Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not. Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue. Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest. There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive. A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.

On 3/2/2022 4:46 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> It's pretty clear that "socialism" has different interpretations in the USA and in Europe. Merriam-Webster (a US company) defines it as "A social system or theory in which the government owns and controls the means of production (as factories) and distribution of goods."
>
> However, European political parties that are comfortable describing themselves as "socialist" often have a mixed ownership policy, where some entities (e.g. post office, railways) are state owned and others are in private ownership. Wiki reflects this stating "economic and social systems characterised by social ownership", 'characterised' being looser, and continues "no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism".
>
> So for instance, in the UK we had a "Democratic Socialist Party" just one of many with the same name - you can check the list if you have little to do:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialist_Party
>
> In the UK the SDP was an offshoot of the Labour Party, Wiki:-
> The Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a centrist to centre-left political party in the UK. It supported a mixed economy, electoral reform, European integration and a decentralised state while rejecting the possibility of trade unions being overly influential within the industrial sphere. The SDP officially advocated "social democracy", but its actual propensity is evaluated as close to social liberalism.
>
> So what is "social liberalism"? Here we have a term which places "socialism" closer to 'liberalism". As follows:
> " Under social liberalism, the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the world. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left. A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasizing the rights and autonomy of the individual."
>
> So let's have some disambiguation here. Frank as an economist is giving a narrow literal definition based on state ownership. I as a liberal European, on the other hand, am using socialism as "social liberalism" which is the form it takes in Europe and elsewhere. So of course, I completely endorse "the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual." I have frequently talked about "the common good" in terms of vaccination, wearing masks etc. and I am against the US obsession with the "freedom of the individual" when it conflicts with essential measures for the common good. These, as above, include "social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education and the climate using government intervention".
>
> So let's be clear - I am completely aligned with social liberalism and my views and posts are entirely in harmony with it. I am only one of many, many people who align themselves in Europe in this way. So "socialism" in the language of many Europeans is much more aligned with "social issues and the common good". This is very clear to Europeans - less so in the USA where the term "socialism" is a pejorative term used by right wingers to justify their opposition to anything "liberal".

>
Of course it is important to have a common understanding of words and terms to have a meaningful discussion. But I don't see how the terms "liberal socialism" or "social liberalsm" or any term that contains modifiers on the word "socialism" can simply be substituted for the "socialism." When it comes to definitions, we need to stick to the dictionaries. That's what they are for.
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>

On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:29:03 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> Of course it is important to have a common understanding of words and terms to have a meaningful discussion. But I don't see how the terms "liberal socialism" or "social liberalsm" or any term that contains modifiers on the word "socialism" can simply be substituted for the "socialism." When it comes to definitions, we need to stick to the dictionaries. That's what they are for. > >

A dictionary definition of "socialism" is historically informative, but it doesn't correspond very often to what's happening on the ground so it's not very relevant to real world cases. If in practice "socialism" takes modified forms, then a term such as "social liberalism" or "democratic socialism" must be considered - as Wiki states - as part of the socialism canon.

This is important in the USA where anything with "socialism" in it is thrown together by right wingers as an unacceptable form of government. In Europe anything with "socialism" in it is widely respected as representing government for the common good.

So while I agree that your narrow definition of "socialism" is not historically wrong, I don't agree at all that it's the only context in which the word "socialism" can be used. But you knew in advance that I would hold that view.

On 3/2/2022 10:56 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:29:03 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Of course it is important to have a common understanding of words and terms to have a meaningful discussion. But I don't see how the terms "liberal socialism" or "social liberalsm" or any term that contains modifiers on the word "socialism" can simply be substituted for the "socialism." When it comes to definitions, we need to stick to the dictionaries. That's what they are for. > >
>
> A dictionary definition of "socialism" is historically informative, but it doesn't correspond very often to what's happening on the ground so it's not very relevant to real world cases. If in practice "socialism" takes modified forms, then a term such as "social liberalism" or "democratic socialism" must be considered - as Wiki states - as part of the socialism canon.
>
> This is important in the USA where anything with "socialism" in it is thrown together by right wingers as an unacceptable form of government. In Europe anything with "socialism" in it is widely respected as representing government for the common good.
>
> So while I agree that your narrow definition of "socialism" is not historically wrong, I don't agree at all that it's the only context in which the word "socialism" can be used. But you knew in advance that I would hold that view.

Then you are forcing people to make up a new term for traditonal, dictionary "socialism." Like "Pure Socialism." I think that is not useful. Does it make sense to have "socialism" and "liberal socialism" mean the same thing? It doesn't make sense.

> I think we should follow the science. Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not. Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue. Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest. There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive. A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.

The fundamental question is: what conditions must be met to deny people essential health care when they cannot afford the costs?

Henk

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:23:55 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> If you don't think there is a reasoned argument to be made against universal tcare then it is you who are ignorant. If there are no "rational reasons" then those who are against it are either stupid or evil. End of discussion.

The rational reason for not transitioning to more robust healthcare coverage for traditionally uninsured people tends to be less profit for existing businesses in the industry, either due to increased costs adapting to new regulations or long term profit loss due to new operational rules. That's it. All other reasons generally strike me as irrational or deranged, i.e. "more health care will make us less free" etc.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:24:52 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 11:28 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?
> >
> > Oh, and I'll also recognize that some Republicans think it is their duty to oppose Democrats as strongly as possible on every issue, because all good must come from Republicans and nothing good can come from Democrats. Don't ask me to respect that.
> Do I really have to turn this statement around 180 degrees and if I do, will you deny it?

Yes, I will. And claiming so isn't even remarkable. Democrats have a well-deserved reputation for seeking and being comfortable with compromise. Democratic party representatives often have bases dominated by minority interest groups, and this makes the ties between party members weaker (and often at odds with each other) versus the uniformity of The Republican caucus (though Trump has gone further than anyone in fracturing party unity). It is simply not possible for the Democratic party to be as extreme as the Republican party. As much as AOC and Bernie are the pinups for what conservative loathe, the makup of the party guarantees they will have little power. I'd stake my life that if Trump had hatched a viable infrastructure plan, it would have sailed through the House and Senate with plenty of Democratic party support, even as Republicans claimed it as a win for their party. Democrats are about a lot more than opposition, while the living pulse of the Republican party (at least among elected officials) has shifted to being all about opposition, in weakeneng and destroying govermnent so that powerful interests are richer and more free from legal oversight. Find me a Democratic Senate leader who committed to a program of 100% obsctruction like Mitch did with Obama. You won't.

In article <bbe4d1f9-d845-40e0-8bbf-b9dae2ea7291n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>All other reasons generally strike me as irrational or deranged,
>i.e. "more health care will make us less free" etc.

Being against universal healthcare -- universal healthcare *as
such*, not some particular mechanism or range of mechanisms -- means
believing that it's important that some people not have healthcare.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:24:59 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> I think we should follow the science. Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not. Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue. Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest. There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive. A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.

So I take it
1) You may be opposed to universal healthcare
2) If so, you aren't going to say
3) You think those who take this position are demonized
4) But you won't represent their beliefs or spell out your own. It's the other side that is bad (worth of condemnation, in fact) for not affirmatively reading up on this in the way you approve.

Is that a Libertarian methodology?

Also, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea the economics is a "way of thinking, and that economic models are neither true nor false, but either useful or not useful" (Leamer), and think there is tremendous value to economics even with these limits. But I don't feel comfortable calling the social science of economics "science". You're only going to reach certainty in economics by silencing the other economists who disagree with you.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:56:43 PM UTC-6, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <bbe4d1f9-d845-40e0...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >All other reasons generally strike me as irrational or deranged,
> >i.e. "more health care will make us less free" etc.
> Being against universal healthcare -- universal healthcare *as
> such*, not some particular mechanism or range of mechanisms -- means
> believing that it's important that some people not have healthcare.

Amen.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 10:56 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:29:03 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Of course it is important to have a common understanding of words and terms to have a meaningful discussion. But I don't see how the terms "liberal socialism" or "social liberalsm" or any term that contains modifiers on the word "socialism" can simply be substituted for the "socialism." When it comes to definitions, we need to stick to the dictionaries. That's what they are for. > >
> >
> > A dictionary definition of "socialism" is historically informative, but it doesn't correspond very often to what's happening on the ground so it's not very relevant to real world cases. If in practice "socialism" takes modified forms, then a term such as "social liberalism" or "democratic socialism" must be considered - as Wiki states - as part of the socialism canon.
> >
> > This is important in the USA where anything with "socialism" in it is thrown together by right wingers as an unacceptable form of government. In Europe anything with "socialism" in it is widely respected as representing government for the common good.
> >
> > So while I agree that your narrow definition of "socialism" is not historically wrong, I don't agree at all that it's the only context in which the word "socialism" can be used. But you knew in advance that I would hold that view.
> Then you are forcing people to make up a new term for traditonal, dictionary "socialism." Like "Pure Socialism." I think that is not useful. Does it make sense to have "socialism" and "liberal socialism" mean the same thing? It doesn't make sense.

I don't get it. Just a while ago you were perfectly comfortable with Republicans using "socialism" to mean "big government". But you don't like it when common usage among Europeans strays from textbook definition?

I love dictionaries, but I will admit that they follow common usage, and that at some point, if not already, there may be an entry where it is defined as "big government". Can we classify that one as slang, please?

On 3/2/2022 11:37 AM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:24:49 -0500, Frank Berger
> <frankdberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think we should follow the science. Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not. Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue. Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest. There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive. A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.
>
> It is interesting that healthcare is one of the very few issues where
> you see what the US does domestically regularly compared with what
> goes on in other countries. There is plenty of scare propaganda that
> healthcare is much slower in countries where it is universal. One
> thing that seems to be true is that physicians don't make as much
> money in countries where the government pays for everybody's
> healthcare.

Crap. I meant not shills.

On 3/2/2022 10:24 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 1:25 AM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:25:37 UTC+11, mswd...gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:31:33 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> That's correct. But nobody in their right mind thinks that government-operated single payer healthcare is going to happen in the USA this century. And that's not what we were talking about. Calling universal healthcare socialist is ignorant.
>>>>>
>>>> Only if you really believe it. Otherwise it may be smart politics.
>>> It's both- I'm not in denial.
>>>> Instead of calling it stupid and cruel, why not admit it is smart politics (even if untrue) in order to prevent implementation of a policy they think is bad for the country?
>>> Yep, let's hear the rational reasons why having a better-insured population with easier access to medical care actually hurts us. Any takers?
>>
>> It hurts those who have reasons and longstanding proven opposition to more universally accessible healthcare, namely the right wing factions.
>>
>> It is quite unthinkable that such opposition has and still continues to exist. There is no way it can be bad for the country, given that a heslthier country is a far more productive country. This is apart from the obvious compassionate reasons of course. But then enlightenment and education about poverty and the misery it causes, was never a Fox News item for consideration was it? Neither do the "religious" right seem to care either.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
>
> I think we should follow the science.  Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not.  Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue.  Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest.  There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive.  A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.

I hope it is obvious that I meant "not shills."

On 3/2/2022 12:46 PM, HT wrote:
>
>> I think we should follow the science. Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not. Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue. Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest. There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive. A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.
>
> The fundamental question is: what conditions must be met to deny people essential health care when they cannot afford the costs?
>
> Henk

What conditions must be met to deny people essential housing or food when they cannot afford the costs?

On 3/2/2022 2:02 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:24:59 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> I think we should follow the science. Whether this leads to universal healthcare or not. Economists have written volumes (meant literally and figuratively) about the issue. Economists who are academics and shills of any particular vested interest. There are pros and cons to universal healthcare that are intuitive and some that are not so intuitive. A person who wants to learn about this without demonizing anyone who is against universal healthcare can do some research. Or not.
>
> So I take it
> 1) You may be opposed to universal healthcare

I may be. Why do you care if I am or not, as long as I investigate as best I can and then come to a position I am comfortable with?

> 2) If so, you aren't going to say

Maybe I am uncertain. Is that allowed?

> 3) You think those who take this position are demonized

I know with certainty that people who take this position are often demonized as not caring about the poor people who have limited or no access to health care, when logically it does not follow, because there are fair arguments to be made against universal healthcare. Just as people who are against minimum wages because they believe (as nearly all economists do) that a minimum wage costs jobs are demonized for not caring about the working poor. I am getting tired of saying this stuff, but will continue as long as I have energy.

> 4) But you won't represent their beliefs or spell out your own.

Why are you obsessed with my opinions? I have no interest in yours. I respond to sloppy thinking and analysis (and yes, demonization) when I see it. That is what I care about. More even than whether we do or don't have universal healthcare.

It's the other side that is bad (worth of condemnation, in fact) for not affirmatively reading up on this in the way you approve.
>
> Is that a Libertarian methodology?
>

Is that a wisecrack? I don't get it.

> Also, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea the economics is a "way of thinking, and that economic models are neither true nor false, but either useful or not useful" (Leamer), and think there is tremendous value to economics even with these limits. But I don't feel comfortable calling the social science of economics "science". You're only going to reach certainty in economics by silencing the other economists who disagree with you.

"Social" modifies "science." It is understood that a social science is not as "hard" as physical science.

Just as "liberal" modifies "socialism," where the understanding is it that means that liberal socialism is something different than, but having some of the elements of socialsm. Or so the understanding has been and should be.

On 3/2/2022 2:11 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 10:56 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 15:29:03 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> Of course it is important to have a common understanding of words and terms to have a meaningful discussion. But I don't see how the terms "liberal socialism" or "social liberalsm" or any term that contains modifiers on the word "socialism" can simply be substituted for the "socialism." When it comes to definitions, we need to stick to the dictionaries. That's what they are for. > >
>>>
>>> A dictionary definition of "socialism" is historically informative, but it doesn't correspond very often to what's happening on the ground so it's not very relevant to real world cases. If in practice "socialism" takes modified forms, then a term such as "social liberalism" or "democratic socialism" must be considered - as Wiki states - as part of the socialism canon.
>>>
>>> This is important in the USA where anything with "socialism" in it is thrown together by right wingers as an unacceptable form of government. In Europe anything with "socialism" in it is widely respected as representing government for the common good.
>>>
>>> So while I agree that your narrow definition of "socialism" is not historically wrong, I don't agree at all that it's the only context in which the word "socialism" can be used. But you knew in advance that I would hold that view.
>> Then you are forcing people to make up a new term for traditonal, dictionary "socialism." Like "Pure Socialism." I think that is not useful. Does it make sense to have "socialism" and "liberal socialism" mean the same thing? It doesn't make sense.
>
> I don't get it. Just a while ago you were perfectly comfortable with Republicans using "socialism" to mean "big government".

I didn't say I was perfectly comfortable with it. I said it wasn't a big deal. Please don't twist my words.

But you don't like it when common usage among Europeans strays from textbook definition?
>

> I love dictionaries, but I will admit that they follow common usage, and that at some point, if not already, there may be an entry where it is defined as "big government". Can we classify that one as slang, please?

> What conditions must be met to deny people essential housing or food when they cannot afford the costs?

One condition we know from NGOs: the circumstances are such that it is too dangerous to provide medical assistance, housing or food.
Another we know from covid: if we help A (heart problems), we have no place for B (covid), and we cannot send B home.

The condition: you cannot afford the costs, is of a different order. It is addressing someone's bank account.

Henk

Hey, Frank,

I've well gotten the message that "my talking to you should indicate no interest in you or sharing my opinions, I'm simply interested in correcting you."

And with that in mind, I'd say that you are not worth talking to. So I shall cease the conversation. I leave it to you to close with some sort of judgment of me and my foolishness.

On 3/2/2022 7:34 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey, Frank,
>
> I've well gotten the message that "my talking to you should indicate no interest in you or sharing my opinions, I'm simply interested in correcting you."
>
> And with that in mind, I'd say that you are not worth talking to. So I shall cease the conversation. I leave it to you to close with some sort of judgment of me and my foolishness.

Not necessary. Till next time.

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:55:02 AM UTC-8, MELMOTH wrote:
> This is the time...
> To listen to the three war
> sonatas of Prokofiev...
>

Clearly Shosty's Leningrad
Symphony is much more of
a war composition than the
war sonatas. And so is
Alexander Nevsky.

Check this:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/biden-to-china-we-know-russia-wants

dk