I think I have written about this before, but the problem continues and offers the opportunity for an amplification or a way to reach new ears. I engage heavily in social media and welcome the chance to use such services to share my opinions and challenge opinions that run contrary to my way of viewing the world. I believe in the exchange of ideas and I believe in true debate. Of course, I don’t get to set the rules, but for meaningful conversations and debate to occur there must be rules.
One of my observations is that most issues are complex and nuanced and the tactic of simplification results in everyone becoming frustrated at the resulting waste of time. One of the most common tactics of simplification is the expression of an objection to a claim or situation by the application of a label. Recent examples associated with political discussions involve labels such as socialist, communist, or fascist. Vague appeals to religion also fit this template.
Using labels is lazy. Using labels offers the perception of making a sound argument when nothing specific comes to mind and often does not exist. Using a label is a way to communicate with others holding a similar existing view but completely useless in explaining to individuals who are neutral or who disagree why they should change their perception.
Those who use labels open themselves up to challenges of “how is this any different from that” and rightly so. The issue that comes immediately to mind is government sponsored or required health care. Would this be socialism? If socialism to you implies the government intervenes to assure a service universal health care would represent an example. However, if you are against the government taking responsibility for a given service and believe you shouldn’t have to accept such mandates you are against military service and conscription, public education, and the postal service among many other examples. It could be argued that paying for and serving in a military operation should be a personal choice. Those of us of age in the late 60s and early 70s know that this isn’t the way our democracy works. When drafted, you don’t get to say that I won’t serve because this war is not responsibility. You can certainly complain and do whatever else is within the law to object, but you can’t reject the requirement as socialism. We all pay for education whether we have kids or not. Our taxes partially support the mail SERVICE even though the cost/benefit is very unequal depending on where we live and how frequently we use the service. A political system is clearly not either socialist or not depending on whether any given service requires a commitment from all.
So, don’t claim that democrats are trying to impose socialized medicine on all of us. Socialism has nothing to do with whether any given service can be expected of a government. If you object to a health care system that allows the political system to ignore the needs of individuals, just say that this is your position. I see protection of the country and the individuals within the country by support of the military and the protection of the country and the protection of individuals within the country from disease and injury to be commitments I accept making. It doesn’t make me a socialist to have these values. It simply means I see it my responsibility to address certain basic needs with health and protection from foreign aggression being among these basic needs.
I would be pleased to discuss with you what needs you see as the responsibility of all citizens.