Thanks for the response. I think I was being too harsh before. And I think you are putting forth a reasonable and commonly held view. I think it's a crime again

Thanks for the response. I think I was being too harsh before. And I think you are putting forth a reasonable and commonly held view. I think it's a crime against comprehension to take well-known words and try to make them mean something else. That said, I'm not actually sure I'm doing that when I equate massive taxation and redistribution with socialism. High taxes and redistribution is an attempt to get away with socialism, without calling it "socialism." I don't think that is even controversial. It is the same goal with only slightly different means. So in calling that "socialism," I'm just calling it for what it really is, in terms of motivation and goal, and partially in terms of method (which is still coercive, just at a different point). In further support of my point---different socialists disagree on the precise techinical means of implemnting socialism anyway, so that would suggest that it may be a flexible enough term to encompass what I am talking about. And yet further support of my point is that there is no existing word to describe what I am describing other than "socialism;" if there were, I would be obliged to use that other term. The closest thing would be a "mixed economy." But 51% of Americans now take more from the tax system than they put in, and taxes are what I would call "very high." If you are taxed at a 50% rate, and you live to be 100, you have spent 50 years serving others. Plus we are in the process of implementing universal healthcare. Sounds like what socialist advocates would call a victory. (Of course socialism works so badly that you don't see good things coming out of it in practice, so nobody is claiming victory; but in terms of methodology, they are getting what they have advocated.)