[brc]

I didn't. I said that a socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place. I didn't try and describe socialism as a construct, I described a country with a socialist government which referred to itself as such. I repeat, Norway is not a socialist country.

I'm happy to be given an example of a socialist country in which you're free to leave and own private property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

The joke here is that China and Vietnam are anything but socialist nowadays. China even has a property bubble, which must be turning old Mao around in his grave. But look down the list and you'll see a real who's who of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. And not many startup hotbeds.

[xlpz]

You are still saying the same thing. "A socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place". Who says that? Norway, and many other countries, have had socialdemocratic governments for a long time, who also define themselves as socialist (for instance, they belong to the socialist international). Why is an authoritarian regime describing itself as socialist actually socialist but a socialdemocratic government doing the same isn't? Honest question here, just trying to figure out how do you end up there.

[brc]

I'll make my point very simple for third party readers.

Socialism != Social Democracy != Socialist Country

It's a matter of semantics but so many things are. I do not conflate socialism and social democracy. One is an 'ism' - the other a description of a type of government. Any government can have elements of socialism, but socialist governments, to me (and others) are ones that are self described as socialist countries. Norway has a currently elected parliament that has a majority of members who identify with socialism, but that does not make it a socialist country. It's not about post-Reaganism or whatever. USSR stood for United Soviet Socialist Republics. That was a socialist country. If a pile of Norwegians want to define their country as Socialist, let them do so.