Sanders, socialism, and straw men

"We are socialists," is what a recent opinion says.

The writer first asserts that it is fine if Bernie Sanders is a socialist. By itself, he is right. Too often, words like "socialism" are used as epithets to disparage. "He's a socialist; therefore, he is bad and must be wrong." This is usually an ad hominem attack, where the person making the argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Plus five points.

However, the writer goes on to suggest that we benefit from socialism via, e.g., "socialist snow plows." He cites the litany of government "services" from which we allegedly benefit. There are many problems with this argument.

First, let us define socialism. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Thus, if there is a government-run industry then, yes, it is socialist*. So, something like the VA system is socialist. The roads are socialist (ignoring the tiny fraction of private roads). Another five points for the writer.

Here's where the argument goes astray. The writer suggests that you can't oppose socialism if you utilize any tax-funded government activities.  This is wrong for a couple of reasons. The money is expropriated in the first place, and this is unethical. If a robber steals your wallet and then buys you some groceries with some of it, must you deny taking the goods in order to denounce the robber's actions?

More importantly, the writer suggests a false dilemma: either we have socialism or we don't have our roads plowed. This is a tired, centuries-old tired argument that Bastiat noted in "The Law" (emphasis added)

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

The writer doesn't consider the possibility that private property and voluntary trade can produce goods far better than any government. For-hire snow plows do a much better job at plowing/salting than DPW, and they do it much more efficiently. Minus 20 points.

Incidentally, the casual, snarky tone toward the end of opinion is a little odd, given that socialism is responsible for millions of death in the 20th century. Ha, ha, ha?

*Note that the technical details of ownership are irrelevant: a fascist system whereby the means of production are owned privately in name but are subject to a list of government regulations is also socialist, as Uncle Sam is still directing production.