You've missed my point entirely. I am not saying that the solutions offered are all communist. I am saying they are characterized that way for political purpose

You've missed my point entirely. I am not saying that the solutions offered are all communist. I am saying they are characterized that way for political purposes. Each one of the options you've laid out has been disingenuously labeled with some form of "scary socialism" (i.e. "communism"). So you're making my point here. I actually believe in the spirit of the options that you recounted. In my view, they can be part of a sane capitalism. But, they are characterized as, let's say, "too-socialist". I further believe that the alternative to these is positioned as laissez-faire capitalism without bounds. So if you'd read my statement closely--the language I chose--you might have grokked my position. But my point was not to state a position, instead encouraging that there are reasonable discussions to be had that don't fall into the standard binary trap. EDIT: You didn't miss my point. I failed to make it clearly. See my edit in the original comment.