TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials. Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths. Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools and
universities in a strategic interest. I do not consider it far fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care. Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call it
socialism if that pleases you.

Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

Cheers,
frtzw906