Again, I would argue very strongly that Australia is NOT a socialist country in any way, shape, or form. Where did you get that idea? It's one of the few countries that require people to vote under penalty of law. Almost half of our country would be penalized under the Australian voting system.

They use a similar system that Canada uses (that "constitutional monarchy" although Australia is closer to a "constitutional democracy" and in practice is very similar to the U.S.). If you asked Australians if they were a socialist country they'd probably look at you like you were crazy.

Public works and government programs are NOT socialist! Liberal, perhaps. But not in any way socialist. If the people choose these programs they are by definition NOT socialist. I don't know any other way to put it. A socialist government cannot be ruled by the people. It must be self-contained and separate from the "mob rule." These "socialist" countries and programs you're discussing here simply do not exist.

North Korea is a socialist country. Russia under Stalin was socialist (not communist...USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or United Soviet Socialist Republic). Nazi Germany was socialist (it literally stood for National Socialist German Worker's Party). Cuba is currently socialist (the Republic of Cuba is a socialist republic based on the Socialist Constitution of 1976). Vietnam is socialist. China is socialist by definition (it has not truly been communist since Mao). Venezuela under Chavez is socialist.

So when Americans think of socialism they think of the USSR, Nazis, Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Kim Jon Il and Kim Il-Sung, Chavez, and other historical examples of socialism in action. These are your "successful" socialist states.

As for life expectancy we're higher than every socialist country plus you have to look closer at the list...we're 6% below the number one spot percentage-wise but number 50 on the list. We also have a higher population than every single one of those countries. Cuba is the only socialist country close to us and the next one, Venezuela, is at 103 and China at 105. North Korea isn't even on the list (as they have people living in less than third-world conditions as well as active death camps this shouldn't be surprising). Be careful with statistics. They rarely say what you want them to.

What you're referring to as "socialist" isn't really socialist at all. Under your definition public transportation is socialist. Call people here in Reno supporters of a socialist state and they'll probably punch you in the face . Our original government was designed to support public systems like firemen, police, hospitals, etc.

The libertarian/anarchist ideal of every man for themselves was never the original intent of the constitution (no matter how much they keep telling us it is). At the time it was assumed that most "public works" would be taken care of by the already established organization that ran charities, orphanages, etc...churches. As we become more secular that role is being moved towards the government instead of religion. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.

This socialist vs. democratic argument really has little to do with the actual policies we're talking about. Big government vs. small government and liberal vs. conservative are much more accurate. Even states rights vs. federal rights. Personally I don't have a problem with things like universal health care decided at the state level. I believe universalizing everything at a federal level is a bad idea and has been since the civil war. What is good for one region may not be good for another. Local decisions should be decided at a local level, not a national one. That's my perspective on it.

But actual socialism is virtually out of the question for our country and using it as a buzz word to garner response is sort of like calling attention to someone who stole a pack of bubble gum by calling him a serial killer. The term being used is completely out of proportion to the actual event being discussed.

I apologize for continuing to go back to the same subject but all this talk about socialism is making me cringe. Nobody in the U.S., in Canada, in Britain, in Australia, or anywhere like that wants to become a new North Korea because it's so much better. We don't even want to become like China and it's arguably more capitalist than any of us! That's mostly due to weak enforcement than any actual government policy but whatever.

Can't we just agree to go back to using the word "liberal" like we've been using for two hundred years? Why the explosive term? Liberal is bad enough!

Jacquesne