Socialism is immoral

You did answer my question but in a rather odd manner. I was looking more towards a direct yes or no. Sorry that I did not understand the first time. As to your comments regarding " general circumstances" and how " there is nothing that can never be taken away." I firmly disagree with you. The rights of man ( even Hitler's and criminals) cannot be taken away unless they themselves violate another persons rights. In this instance of violation on behalf of the violator his rights can then be taken away. Therefore, until a person violates another persons rights, they CANNOT have there rights taken away from them. Once again, you have not given me exactly what you mean by " circumstances generally" many different people have many different circumstances and to say that there is a default set of circumstances is ludicrous. I will ask you once more to please answer what circumstances specifically you mean! A good portion of you argument is based around the " social contract theory" The very name should give you a clue as to what it really is... just a theory. The social contract theory states that individuals have willingly given up some of their freedoms in order for an organized form of justice ( government) to protect the remaining freedoms. This theory is invalid if a person does not consent to either the freedom that they must give up, or the freedom that the government protects. people across the world will not follow their governments if they violate the peoples 'inherent' freedoms ( life, liberty, property) that all governments are suppose to protect. A brilliant example of this would be the Arab Spring, The people living in these nations did not consent to the depravity of their governments even though some of their people did. Even if this group were a minority, they would still be trampled over by the majority whom consent. This is an injustice if there has ever been. You would assert that so long as the government does not prohibit persons from leaving the nation, the government can do what ever it pleases. And what if the person does not want to leave their homeland? According to the social contract, too bad. The same goes for the farmer, it does not matter weather or not the people consent, if the farmer has not violated anyone else liberty, then it only matters weather or not the farmer consents to the resignation of HIS property. Believe me, not many people are going to consent to the immediate seizure of their property because of another group of people want them to. To the situation regarding how I define robbery you stated "1) The confiscation of the farmer's property was not fairly established by whatever legislative channels the farmer has assented to by means of social contract and 2) The farmer was not given any opportunity by the government to have himself and his property completely and safely transported to a society he preferred to live in." As I have already told you the social contract only implies so long as the rights of the individual are not infringed upon as they are in this situation no matter by what legal means. Secondly the farmer should and does not have to leave the property that is his right because of some outside consenting force. You appear to believe that the legislation is some how divine in their rulings and cannot be wrong. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but they are also people, and people make mistakes. Your comments toward my attack against the redistribution of property are as follows "Well, a massive portion of the money that the top 5%, say, of society is illegitimately earned and kept. So, things like rent-seeking, lobbying, tax evasion, etc." You assume that because a person has obtained great amounts of wealth that they earned it illegitimately? Let me give some names from the top 5% http://www.forbes.com... As you can see, these people have not gained their money from illegal means, they have made their money from providing services to the consumer that are completely legal. If you look at how they have attained their wealth, you will notice that many of them have done so through investment. So you see, they are not hoarding all of their money like Smoug the dragon, but rather by sharing their money in exchange for interest. You said quote "Socialists don't want to confiscate the money of the class of people who have earned their money legitimately." But the people that you wanted to take from, the top 5%, earned their money legitimately. Doesn't this kind of go against what you previously said? You then go on to assert that the only property owned is "bourgeoisie property" Here's a little statistic that will change your mind on that http://economics.about.com... as you can see, not only will you be taking property away from the so called " oppressive" bourgeoisie, but you would also be taking away from the hard working people that you claim to love so much. And how exactly are the bourgeoisie abusive? The fact that they give a minimum wage to jobs that require little to no skill what soever like say cashiers or fry cooks? Or is it the fact that according to you, they have forced people into slavery so they would work for them.... even though they joined of their own free will, receive a pay, can be promoted, or leave and join another profession of their choosing. Yes, bourgeoisie slavery. You say that you want to eliminate property that has not been earned through legitimate means when the fact of the matter is, you have only suggested eliminated the property of those whom have prospered. And if Marx believed that artisans deserved to everything they earned, then how come socialism has imposed some of the highest income taxes in the world? You would also go on to say that the worker is alienated from the work of their labor. So, if say I worked in a factory that made door knobs, you are saying that I could not go out to the nearest store and buy one of the door Knobs that I my self had made? REALLY?! A;so, you said that Marx did not care about who was wealthy and who wasn't ( even though you spent the better part of 2 paragraphs attacking the wealthy) This is a complete oxymoron! By stating that the rich have earned their wealth through illegitimate means and then going on to say that they are hard workers and would be protected you have essentially argued against yourself! Which is it?! Are they oppressive, evil, SOBs, or are they hard working, and generous? Finally, I will answer your question of what I mean by full blown socialism. There are two kinds of socialism, the original version developed by Karl Marx and Engels, Then there's the slightly less extreme version of socialism used by nations like Norway, but they have a relatively high free marked standard. If you are wondering what political ideology I hold sway to, it is American capitalist conservatism. I believe that socialism is a horrible system for a realistic world and should never be repeated as it has been so many times before.