“Let me get this straight. For the past quarter-century or more, the central government has been stealing hundreds of billions of dollars each year from competent, hard-working, successful people and giving it to incompetent, lazy failures. As a result, middle-class America has increasingly been impoverished while the poor are even poorer. Now come calls for reforming the system, and liberals are denouncing reformers in the vilest language. What planet did you say liberals are from?”

Not when one is trying to reform a liberal program.  'Liberal' doesn't even mean liberal anymore, it means statist.  And statist programs are in need of reform as soon as they are implemented.

The root of the word liberal is liberalis (suitable for a freeman, generous) and liber (free).  A person who is liberal is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.  To be free is to be unrestrained in form, the only 'reformation' is from being in a state of restriction to being unrestricted.

The classical liberal is ever standing up against claims upon his person, labors and property.  The American republican form of government is based on classical liberalism — republicans are true liberals.

To 'reform' is the method to one's freedom.  Once free, the liberal protects his freedom — so the liberal is also a conservative.  A liberal is a freeman, and to maintain that freeman status the person must take responsibility for it and act in its defense against so-called 'reformers' with designs on him.

Today's "liberal" reformers are but followers of the religion of Power, to "eat the rich" and "burn it down."  Their goal is not Liberty but subservience and perpetual 'service' to the State.  THAT is socialism, so say the socialists themselves.  They call that "equity" and apparently the freeman must give up his liberty to make things "fair."

I would prefer to address your numerous posts on the benefits of socialism where they are.  You seem confused:
"Socialism is the idea that we use our social abilities to change the world."
What dictionary did this come from?
"You just have meaningless labels."
The labels of liberal or reformer are not meaningless, as I have explained..

Good for you, Fred.  As long as "your brand" of socialism does not lay claim to my labors, body, property or family and respects the natural born rights of humankind, then you can lead whatever socialists club you like.  My heart and soul is for Freedom, not democracy, and I have plenty to give without your brand of socialism's compulsion.  Hitler had a "brand" of socialism that came right from his heart and soul, too, so did Lenin, Mussolini, Castro, and Mao.

Fred, I invite you to consider that what "propagates from the heart and soul of one individual" is his philosophy.  If your philosophy differs from socialism (as commonly defined in political science), I suggest giving it a different name that helps highlight a key component of the idea "we use our social abilities to sustain life."  Pick a name that describes that idea.  (The word "socialism" is already taken.)  What social abilities? What sustenance? 

Actually the definitions are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.  You still haven't explained what "social abilities' you are referring to and how they sustain life?  If you ever want the rest of the Psychotics to get it, you're going to have to explain what you mean, as you have already made clear that you apply your own meanings to words.

In your Socialist world, am I free and responsible for my actions?  Do I owe you anything?

Who says what I am free to practice?  When you say "I owe to everyone..." do you mean that I ought to be productive if I want to help ensure the species, or I will be compelled to be productive by some authority or regulation? 

So far, if voluntary, you are describing a free and responsible people — not socialism by any stretch.  Most of the so-called socialists I know who say the world has really never implemented real socialism seem to be describing the principles of Christianity, but their secular attempt at ignoring "God" comes up short.  Rather than acknowledge the mystery, the Science is always settled with these folks.

I agree with you (mostly).  But it sounds more like Capitalism than Socialism.  Just saying.

“Blessings of the state, blessings of the masses. ... Work hard, increase production, prevent accidents, and be happy.”
~ Big Brother

George Lucas's movie, THX 1138

" God Socialism is just another scheme to trick you out of your freedom and productivity." 
There, fixed it for you.  It is knowing the truth that sets you free.

Yes, what a wonderful world.  What is the problem?  It seems your version of socialism is voluntary for its own sake.  So not really statist or collectivist, just a bunch of people who respect me as I respect them.  They lay no claim to me or my labors.  Mutual cooperation by agreement.  Sounds good.  Not socialism though.

Frederick William Sillik, Mr. Archer’s comments are far deeper and more accurate than any of your erroneous word salad. Your redefining of words to fit your immature dynamic doesn’t begin to associate to any reality but your own mental derangement. By an extremely terse example; The de jure jurisprudence of the States united was to be “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). Such administration of “law” is of absolutes (science, gravity, math, life, liberty, property, etc.). Codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. at “nature” (and the laws thereof), are to place in order laws that already exist (for man's expansion / expressions of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and justice). At “nature”, man can NOT create law - carnal man can create despotism and tyranny.

Legal Positivism is an arbitrary exercise at public law; “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) – Legal Positivism is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary - “law” derived from nature; is expressed through Hebrew natural law; - / - while, both the Hebrew and academically accepted philosophy of natural law here fit the subject matter’s definition)

Your diatribe on “crime” is couched in a cosmetic expression of Legal Positivism - NOT, science or nature’s reality. In the real world, “A crime is an offense against a public law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

OK, I admit it, I had to laugh almost uncontrollable while shaking my lowered head at your “inability to converse on a reasonable basis” :-), ;-), :-). - I also admit it is many of my offenses against public law that gives me the ability to converse on a reasonable basis - Mr. Archer will probably agree with my opinion. Responsibility and order MAY be predicated on reason within an enclave of Legal Positivism and/or a domain of absolutes such as the laws of nature. Your being lost in the ethos with all your self created definitions doesn’t fare well in any expression of “reason”. 

I'm NOT saying God is built on a foundation of reason! Thank you, I like the nomenclature — "gangster" / a gangster(s) illuminating error. "God fellow"? How about you invite "reason" or reason fellow to contribute a post?  Maybe the reason God you reference could get together and offer up a post?

Archer, Sillik just called you a "God". What do you think? Considering the source, is that a promotion or, a demotion?