Quote: If we put ideology aside, it is clear that some balance between free market and socialism (the moral component that pure free market lacks)...
Quote:
I think you would find that many people would disagree that a political/economic system that confiscates wealth from those who earned it, and transfers it against their will to those who haven't (socialism), represents a "moral" component.
Thus, IF socialism IS "a political/economic system that confiscates wealth from those who earned it, and transfers it against their will to those who haven't," THEN this would be a fair disagreement. However, the definition is flawed, thus the entire disagreement falls apart.
Encyclopedia Brittanica: socialism is a "system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."
Common definitions of confiscate:
surrendered as a penalty
appropriated: taken without permission or consent especially by public authority; "the condemned land was used for a highway cloverleaf"; "the confiscated liquor was poured down the drain"
impound: take temporary possession of as a security, by legal authority; "The FBI seized the drugs"; "The customs agents impounded the illegal shipment"; "The police confiscated the stolen artwork"
I don't understand where "HappyDaddy" is wrong here, particularly since living in a democracy doesn't mean that you are forfeiting the right to your own individual will and ability to give consent (see bullet 2). Perhaps you could specifically explain and enlighten us; there's no doubt that I at least could really be missing something here.
