1) does that mean they’re entitled to them? Why can’t these needs be met by those people, their families, or simply remain unmet?
2) socialism = redistribution of wealth; govt services are redistribution of wealth
3) didn’t say everyone can take care of themselves, many people can’t take care of themselves now even WITH govt assistance, it’s completely beside the point
Patent protection, law enforcement, safe international finance and goods market access are just some examples of "govt services" Apple benefits greatly from.
(1) They are entitled to them because the government is an extension of the will of the people, and the people entitled certain classes to certain benefits. We, the people, can change this. Until we do, they are and will remain entitled. People payed in to provide these benefits and these benefits are being rendered.
That said they're not all "take" and no "give." As a sibling posted, patent protection incentivizes the inclusion of invention in the public domain in exchange for temporary monopoly. Copyright law and IP law give rise to whole industries in and of themselves. All of which rely on law enforcement, on fire protection, on education, on healthcare, etc. These things cost money.
(2) Classical Socialism is not redistribution of wealth. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Wealth is not the means of production it is the ends. Socialism in the public discourse in the US is yet another definition, basically "capitalism with guard rails" where society ensures a minimum standard of health and well-being for everyone so that we can all rise to the level of our abilities in a meritocratic way instead of plutocratically.
(3) Yes, you are correct, however I personally believe in the "I'd rather 90% of my contributions squandered than see someone die unnecessarily because they fell through the cracks" -- it's really easy to end up there through a series of unfortunate events and I'm not willing to write these people off.
(4) Dick-ish tone or not (and it happens to me by accident from time to time) you do deserve level-headed reply, though I do only speak for myself.
If someone uses hyperbole, scare words, and sweeping generalizations about complicated issues, rational people often assume that (a) that person is trying to bullshit them, or (b) someone else has successfully bullshitted (bullshat?) that person, but they haven't realized it yet.
Ownership rights include the right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. The more rights another has to the profits, the more ownership rights they have.
Therefore, the more taxes that are extracted, the less ownership one has, and the more "communal ownership", i.e., socialistic it is.
Sure, I don't think many would argue that social democratic schemes are further down the scales to the left. But if we define a system that explicitly exists within the context of supporting privately owned corporations socialist, I feel we've overdefined the term to where it's no longer meaningful.
Yes, and they moved specific means of production to Jersey in order to sell their services from there.
Now there are complaints that Apple actually owes more taxes to USG (and other govts).
So which one is it — does Apple own the means of production (and thus what they did is totally legal) or do they not own the means of production (and thus this is socialism)?
Also I'm a pretty hard core capitalist myself but plenty of people aren't actually afraid of the label "socialism", especially those outside the US, so you won't be able to convince someone by just labeling something as socialist.
If I had to generalize, the problems at hand are growing the pie and distributing the pie, and the two are often at odds.
I suppose the reason I choose to argue the semantics is that I think overdefining the term socialism hides the critique of capitalism that socialism embodies, and I think that does a disservice to the debate.
I’m not trying to argue semantics, I don’t think most people on this forum realize that the redistribution of wealth IS socialism. I’m aware that “socialist” does not carry the bad connotation I believe it deserves on this forum.
Capitalist companies are first and foremost concerned with growing the pie; socialist govts are concerned with getting a bigger slice of the current pie and don’t care very much about growing it.
2) calling anyone who recognizes utility of government services is unnecessary and just incorrect
3) suggesting that everyone can take of themselves is simply not true. Some people need help.
4) tone is dickish