On the contrary, most of what PP says is ideological proclamations (and very fanatical, absolutist beliefs at that, which can be compared to the most fringe radical purist ideologies like those of ISIS). Claiming that someone's ideological beliefs are "absolutely true" indicates that you have trouble distinguishing between objective truth vs ideology/religion. Perhaps you share many of his beliefs, so from your perspective it feels like truth to you. Just be careful being blind to your own biases and belief systems, and confusing those for "truth".

What's your point? Social Security isn't taxes. The only way they can pay taxes is if they have engaged in identity theft because they can't legally work. They can pay sales tax, but not federal income tax because in order to work they would have to be paid under the table or they would have had to obtain someone elses social security number. That is identity theft, so even if they pay into social security it still isn't in their name and it isn't legal. How do you think that is a good thing? People go to prison, and should, for identity theft.

I don't think that palepictures and I actually have much in common when it comes to our believes. He is very clear that he is a capitalist first and foremost and a liberal on many other issues.

I'm a constitutionalist at the core and am a social conservative. What we think just happens to overlap in this one small area. And from what I can tell labeling most of the left as socialists is not incorrect since the definition that even Twardlow has agreed to states government owned or regulated and we certainly have plenty of government regulation, which the left seems to universally support, so where do you think he is wrong with labeling the left as socialists?

No, that's not what Twardlow said. He did not say regulation = socialist.

To claim that regulation = socialist is absurd. Pure unregulated capitalism doesn't work. It tends to self-destruct in short order. Regulations are needed at a minumum to break up monopolies, prevent people from being poisoned or killed in the name of profits, to outlaw fraud and stabilize markets, outlaw slavery and inhuman practices which may be profitable but inhumane. Without such regulations, capitalist systems tend to either 1) become unstable and self-destruct at wealth is quickly aggregated to the top and demand is destroyed as the majority of the population are impoverished, or 2) get overthrown by the masses when exploitation and inhumane treatment become too much to stomach.

Pure unregulated capitalism exists only in the dreams and fantasies of those with absolutist, fanatical, delusional ideological purity who don't understand history and why most normal (non-sociopathic) human beings eventually demand regulations to protect normal human values from being destroyed by unscrupulous capitalists who would put profit above all other considerations. The idea in "pure capitalism" that profit can be placed above all other values - health, environment, safety, fairness, life, democracy, etc., is sociopathic and inhuman. People with such a ridiculous absolutist ideological concept of capitalism "untainted" by regulations or taxes propose such a radical fanatical "pure" ideology that they would make even ISIS blush.

No, that's not what Twardlow said. He did not say regulation = socialist.

To claim that regulation = socialist is absurd. Pure unregulated capitalism doesn't work. It tends to self-destruct in short order. Regulations are needed at a minumum to break up monopolies, prevent people from being poisoned or killed in the name of profits, to outlaw fraud and stabilize markets, outlaw slavery and inhuman practices which may be profitable but inhumane. Without such regulations, capitalist systems tend to either 1) become unstable and self-destruct at wealth is quickly aggregated to the top and demand is destroyed as the majority of the population are impoverished, or 2) get overthrown by the masses when exploitation and inhumane treatment become too much to stomach.

Pure unregulated capitalism exists only in the dreams and fantasies of those with absolutist, fanatical, delusional ideological purity who don't understand history and why most normal (non-sociopathic) human beings eventually demand regulations to protect normal human values from being destroyed by unscrupulous capitalists who would put profit above all other considerations. The idea in "pure capitalism" that profit can be placed above all other values - health, environment, safety, fairness, life, democracy, etc., is sociopathic and inhuman. People with such a ridiculous absolutist ideological concept of capitalism "untainted" by regulations or taxes propose such a radical fanatical "pure" ideology that they would make even ISIS blush.

Of course Twardlow didn't say that, but he did agree with the definition that palepictures posted, which clearly states that government ownership or regulation = socialism. I'm not opposed to all regulation, but we have far too much. The amount of regulation that we have is clearly socialistic in nature.

I'm also not necessarily opposed to taxes, however, I agree with Jefferson that being forced to pay taxes for something that you find morally reprehensible is wrong, and we have a lot of that right now.

Not frustrated.
A bit sad to see us moving in one direction, and China moving in the other....A China who will likely eat our lunch in the long run.
Most countries are to varying degrees socialist....Even this one somewhat in the beginning.
I hated to see the lease run out on Hong Kong in the 1990's.
Hong Kong was truly the city that never slept. A flat 5% tax. It had the most populated square mile in the world.
I view socialism on a sliding scale. The further you slide into it, the more the people who are supposed to be helped are harmed.
You end up having more real problems than perceived problems.
The real problem you have in the end is your ability to produce goes down under a socialist state.
Again the scale is sliding. The more you move the doers and make them controllers, the less resources you have to produce.
The less wealth you create.
Really simple concept.
I am not an ideologue although I can see where some might think so.
There is no utopia.
I advocate free markets....It does not mean I do not accept non free market(government) solutions, when they are necessary.
The key word in all of this is advocate.
True Capitalism is an unkown ideal that will and can never happen.
Never the less I am a capitalist. I promote and encourage free market solutions in most cases.
What I find interesting is that I can say that I am a capitalist because of what I advocate.
Many people can not call themselves socialist even though every side they take is on the side of promoting a bigger government and regulation.
Classical liberalism is nothing what Liberalism has evolved into today.
Politically I consider myself a "Classical Liberal".
Economically I consider myself Capitalist.
To be a Classical Liberal, I would have to be a Capitalist.....
The political ideology of Classical Liberalism aligns with the Economics of Capitalism.
I truly don't get to uptight about my positons. I like to think they are pretty well thought out.
I do seem to get others very uptight.
One of the things I do like about you...Is you really don't start all the name calling and demonization...
I know we all have our moments.
Classical Liberals are some of the most tolerant people on earth. We are outnumbered typically on both sides of and argument.
We have to be tolerant...... or take meds.....

One final note about being free.
I use the term Liberty.
"There is no greater tyranny for a man to have to pay for that which he does not want simply because you think it is good for him."
Robert Heinlein.
Most people want their selected liberty. They have no problems imposing on someone else's Liberty.
The peace activist has no problems voting the gun owners rights away.
The Health activist has no problem forcing someone else to pay for others medicines and health care. Even though that person may believe they die when they die and has no want or need for health insurance.
The Restaurant owner has no problem regulating the street vendor out of business because he takes business from him(Crony Capitalism)
The Drug companies have no problems with regulations that stifle new startups with regulations, because it protects their markets(Crony Capitalism)
Taxi cab drivers in New York have no problem with regulations that prevent other people starting up a Cab company.(It cost 1 million dollars per car for license)
Austin Texas even Banned Uber because of the "Taxi Lobby"
The list goes on with what regulation and socialism does....The unintended consequences.

You keep blurring the line between government ownership of the means of production, vs regulation. It makes no sense to not differentiate the two concepts. Twardlow never gave any indication that regulation = socialism. Rather, he clearly gave a much more narrow definition of socialism defined as government ownership of the means of production, period. You should go back and re-read his posts if you are unclear on this.

Anyway, if you are not opposed to all regulation, then we are in agreement. I believe some regulation is necessary, and that there is a point where regulations may go too far. Where that line is is open to debate (although not open to debate with fanatical lunatic purists like PP who claims that any regulation is evil, which is asinine...although he contradicts himself...in his last post he finally admitted that some regulations to protect the environment are necessary after he previously said that any and all regulation is evil socialism, so he can't seem to make up his mind).