In response to the sick Tim Walz comment about "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness" I posted the image shared above.
A statist thought he'd get me with "Is the police department socialism? Fire department? Military? If you think any of these being controlled at the national, state, [or] civic level is a good thing then you just supported a form of socialism."
I know. And...?
No. I don't think letting government control any of those things is a good thing-- I don't support them. At least not in their government iteration. They are funded with theft ("taxation"), you can't opt out or provide a competing service for yourself (and others) and save your money. And I told him so.
So he tried a different approach: "Police & fire departments are funded by local taxes. The military is funded by the senate authorising the creation of money."
What does that have to do with the topic? But, I'll play. I told him they were still socialism and unethical. If something can’t be funded voluntarily it needs to die.
Because of his bizarre comment about money, though, and his apparent need to educate me, this then devolved into a discussion of what "money" is, which will be part 2.
Really, though. Do people who oppose political socialism have that hard a time grasping that government police, firefighters, and military don't get a free pass? That if a service is actually necessary and wanted, people will support it without being robbed and threatened?
Do socialists believe the rest of us are this clueless? And is this why they think they can get us to embrace socialism if they frame it a certain way?