To Andrew:
I use the term 'socialism' (when I do) because it's the correct context for what I'm trying to say. The difference between socialism and communism is that communism is socialism, with the addition of a particular government and religeous structure. Socialism is only (generally speaking) the process/structure of the government running what could/should otherwise be private enterprises, interfering in private contracts, manipulating markets, and exerting control over private enterprise.
I agree that it's unfortunate that our uninformed youth confuse the two, and/or do not appeciate the malignancies of socialism simply based on the terminology. However, I'm not going to debase my logical analysis to try to appease people who are two dumb or ill-informed to reply with anything other than the semantic equivalent of "nuh-uh" anyway; personal choice.
I want to make clear that Nick and I are on the same side and this was a valid point and I understand his argument so there is nothing personal here. I see nothing wrong with his viewpoint, yet after reading Common Sense by Beck/Paine, I noticed that it was written in a way than anybody could understand it. Anyone with even basic reading skills could pick it up and understand every point made. I think that is important to do here. I want anyone who stumbles onto this blog to understand the points made here. Climate is a good example...I could lay out terms all day that would have most folks so confused their head would spin, but is that my goal? Was that Glen's goal in writing Common Sense? I think not. I want everybody to understand my points, whether new to politics, climate change or whatever the subject or not. Not all of us have been in this debate as long as others and I want everybody to understand my point. That's common sense.
