29 Dec 2022 1:03 am
Your Libertarian propaganda masters sold you on the concept that any sort of public services/provisions is "socialism." That statement is beyond absurd.LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 1:57 am » wrote: ↑ I've been asked and answered this question several times. Likely by you. You seem to think this is a question which furthers your argument in some manner. It doesn't. It is merely a Red Herring. It is a brain dead query quite frankly and not at all relevant for serious contemplation.
No system of government can exist without a system of government. So all governments which have ever existed cannot be devoid of government. So the hell what? Ask a completely stupid question and you get a stupid answer. But the answer is correct as you framed the question.
Government provision of ANY function is by definition socialist in some regard. For instance having a judicial system of any kind would rightly be considered a socialist endeavor. Any taxes which are expended for the common good (in this case to provide for judicial review) would be considered socialism. So without socialism there are no government functions conducted. Without taxation it would be a strange endeavor indeed for government to conduct any function of import beyond charitable contributions of labor from its citizens.
Your implication is equivalent to stating "without taxation you can't have government so socialism is the only valid system". This doesn't pass philosophical reasoning conventions and is obviously just useless contemplation designed to gain a hollow victory. The posing an illogical question irrelevant to the inquiry. The insinuation is that any form of government requires some form of government and therefore capitalism can't exist so it is invalid. I will concede the point with uproarious laughter and ascendancy.
Every functioning civilization since 10000 BC had public works and public services - only difference is the extent and quality to which said "commons" were provided. The vast majority of those civilizations were not "socialist."