“We clamour for equality chiefly in areas where we cannot ourselves hope to obtain excellence.”

Sort of like when someone wins a race and everyone gets a gold medal so as not to hurt anyones precious feelings.

Who is this "we". A true man (or woman) a real man tries to lift others up. If one does not feel that he is a real or a superior being (in the best meaning of that) he or she probably has little regard for helping others.

Good Waffler, though I would change the your word 'superior" for "compassionate". Jim - get a life. Winning a race and starving to death are two different things - in your world its winner take all and don't share with those who are not as strong or brainy? Wow! what a world... Socialism came about because of this very reason. Tell me whats wrong with wanting equal rights? what's wrong with helping those less fortunate? what's wrong with sharing your good fortune (which has been made probably on the backs of those who labor and are not either clever enough to become boss's and must remain underlings. Waffler get ready for the onslaught...

One cannot lift another unless he is standing.

What good old Waffler and RBE propose is that we all become enablers of people who engage in self destructive behavior. Making the capable into dependents is like giving an alcoholic another drink. Treat people like they are children and helpless and they will behave that way. It is the cruelest slavery imaginable. Socialism came about because open slavery was just too distasteful in the modern world. The slave masters had to disguise it so they could smile at each other at their dinner parties.

Ken, obviously you are beyond education when it comes to social issues, therefore I suggest you leave that subject alone. Ken, why do you always think black and white - there are many shades of welfare other than what you express which is in line with most nationalists. I feel sorry for you - it will be progressive and liberals that will pick you up from the curb when the need arises. Abigail would leave you there. You have not the slightest knowledge how socialism came about, I suggest you google it. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

I'm defending Socialism because of twisted interpretation it has on this blog not because I necessarily agree with it.

Most of us I would bet know very little about Socialism but virtually all of us participate in socialism each and every day. socialim wriitten small is nothihng more in my definition than people living, existing and doing things together. People have been doing that ever since they dug out the first cave together. I agree with RBESRQ that we need a new dialogue and a new way of talking without all of the knee jerk mentality we see so much of. Without a new way of talking we will never solve any of the problems that we share toghter in society (society just another socialist word I guess). While Ken sees some others as incapable and hopeless, some others see the incapable as possibilites and start training programs or Community Colleges, it is all a matter of point of view and value systems I guess.

ahh maybe some / most ? Socialism's origins are steeped in control of the masses and has nothing to do with the nobility of caring, one for another. Socialism has noting to do with Waffler's false assertions and/or mis direction rhetoric.

Principles are always black and white. That is what makes them principles. That would make those who think everything is some shade of gray what? Unprincipled perhaps. Pragmatism is the deal with the devil that turns black and white into gray, and the less deal making with the devil the better. In turn that would mean the least socialism possible is for the best because socialism necessarily means a loss of freedom and an increase in dependency; that is, less humanity. Robert, you seem to have some view that everyone who disagrees with you is one of the uneducated masses. I would suggest you read some Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Locke, and Voltaire. Throw in a little John Stuart Mill for good measure. That would give you a better idea of where this country is coming from. Put down your Howard Zinn high school history book that taught you what socialism is, and read the history of the Russian revolution. That is the ultimate outcome of socialism. Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau tell you so.

Ken, said well !

Mike socialism like most movements are attempted to be taken over by individuals. That is what happened to it Russia for example. Such a take over negates the grassroots beginings of movements. Outside of the totalitarian nature of Russian socialism there is a natural tendency of peoples to do things together, to reach common ground on common problems, community and village planning. That phenomenon is seen and has existed all over the world for milleniums. If you will see the difference between people, the majority anyway, working together coomperatively for common things, versus a totalitarina dictatorship, you may come to understand things a little more clearly.

A social formulation of equality would result in an excellent life productive process. The whole life process would react in significant higher dimension.