Fred seems to share some Conservative values and is having trouble categorizing them into socialist boxes. What to do with the biggest socialist group of all LGBTQI+ — call them fascists?  I do not disagree.  But Fred's definition of socialism is just another flavor of totalitarian governance 'for our own good.' The Catholic Church of old was the same.

I agree with a good portion of Fred's ideals and goals for humanity, but completely disagree with the HOW they are to be achieved.

The battle against evil is primarily with oneself, within one's own heart, to not become like the evil doers while in defense of goodness, truth and love.  That means having a thinking mind and a compassionate heart.  Watching my fellows go down a road to perdition is heart wrenching.  I must find a way to reach them without coercion and force.

Fred, in your world, how are your ideals to be achieved?  How to get the people to go along?  Do they have a choice?  Will you be a leader of some sort?  What place does Freedom have in your world? 

Please answer the simple questions, not another distraction on how uneducated I am (a politician's trick to not answer a straight question.)  These are not gotcha's.  If you are going to impose your vision on the rest of us, we will have to know the rules.

"No one in the world, other than myself, sincerely supports equality."  Who is biased and mentally ill?  Talk about lunacy (narcissism, arrogance, ignorance, delusions of grandeur).

Holy crap!  THAT is the (public) education you got from University of Northern Iowa?  The American middle class are Nazis?  What a load of commie BS.  Talk about mental illness...

"Deviances will be treated humanely" WOW!  Straight up fascism!

You know nothing of my education, Fred.  And you have not been claiming to be an average adult, and an average adult is not like you, as you admit to have superior morality and education 'than' (not then) the rest of us.  This sounds more like arrogance than educated...

There's a big difference between making accusations and making an argument.  Please debate the arguments, not the man.

One of my favorites!

Social engineering is definitely fascistic.  And it is definitely socialist/statist.  Your definition of the socialist has a Hitler-esque ring to it — the super man.  The Nazis rounded up homosexuals, too.  Hitler was a vegetarian, didn't smoke or drink, and would agree with your definition of socialism, Fred. Delusions of grandeur.

I think I'm beginning to see the mental splinter in Fred's mind.  His description of socialism more resembles the Universalist Church, only without the Christian concept of God and the Creator.  The basic principles are there, only their application is guided by some who claim to be unbiased and educated while the common folk need to be led.  This is the collectivist aspect.  This is not freedom.

While a person should do good, compelling them to do what others say is good is ripe for corruption.  The rulers benefit tremendously when the people are convinced that they must obey the dictates of the do-gooders rather than decide for themselves what cause to donate time and money to.  

All that mankind needs to do to 'save' ourselves is to take responsibility and remember who we really are.

Hmm, they were all killed by their wives, but rather should have been put on trial and executed via tribunal instead?  Wow that's a new take.

That's what Liberty is all about — living life to the fullest without hindrance from others imposing their rules on society, laying claim to what is not theirs, pushing the answers to 'why am I here?'   I can see that Fred's version of socialism is great for him, it's just that the rest of us would like to live our own lives.

Bizarre.  They deserved to be put on trial?  Sheesh.

Love it!  Right on the button.

What a difference 70 years has made at Yale ...

My goodness, how far Massachusetts has fallen...

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."

Are children still taught that any more?  How about college kids?

Trusting and respecting the Laws of Nature is republicanism.  Democracy is essentially mob rule.  Socialism is a theocracy.  Socialism cannot be implemented without force — i.e. violence.  Whatever happened to 'live and let live?'  

I think your posts ARE relevant to "if you can keep it."  An unarmed citizenry CANNOT keep it!  ;-)  Thanks, Jim.

Excellent video, Logan.  Collectivism vs Individualism equates to a Democracy vs Republic and Socialist vs Libertarian.  This is the quintessential distinction to understand.  Now, that would be 'progress.'

Change the word 'Education' to 'Truth' — there fixed it for you.

Great.  Now do climate change.

"It would be the very pleasant to meet productively and positively with an intelligent individual." 

So much for that, eh?  Your arrogance and narcissism are getting in the way.

Ad hominem.  I responded clearly to your posts, Fred.  You are just name-calling.

There it is — the Socialist wants to control you.  All talk of love and understanding out the window.  Your way or no way.  That is indeed socialism.  There are no rights under socialism, only privileges.

Fred, you miss the essence of the difference between your definition of socialism and actual socialism.  Real socialism has lofty utopian ideals, but all under its thumb MUST obey the leaders in the WAY they implement their goals for society.  There is no freedom and thus no personal responsibility.  A free people must indeed love one another, be directed by goodness, have an aversion to lies, theft and murder, and work together to defend the never-ending assaut on their natural born rights — yes, rights.  Even uneducated children have rights — they do not need to earn them.  

As far as I can tell, Fred, your definition of socialism is an appropriation of the Christian 'way' except that the people are not free but are always under the regulation of someone like, well, you, Fred, as you have stated that the common people are children and need your guidance.  The secular version of this is essentially fascism which has as its focus the purity of the people in service to the whole (the State).

Let me help you out, Fred.  What you are defining as socialism is a form of collectivism which is in direct opposition to a republican form of government chartered by a free people.

Like so many liberals, you have the right idea, just the wrong 'way' to implement it.  The ends do not justify the means.

I think you may be inclined towards classic liberalism — just don't call it socialism.  Stick with Liberty and personal Responsibility, and you can be as loving and helpful as you can be, and you will find a lot of support and like-minded folks.  And instead of looking down on we common people, you might find we aren't all as 'primitive' as you think.  ;-)