And I think over the last couple of years (during much of that time you were just learning to tie your shoes) I have defined the problem quite succinctly.
Redistribution, through whatever method in order to equalize outcome; call it fairness, leveling, etc..
Its ALL bad. And because republicans don't do it full time, it is still morally wrong.
The act of government as described in the following anecdote by Dinesh D'Souza pretty much describes what is socialist.
" I am walking down the street, eating a sandwich, when I am approached by a hungry man. He wants to share my sandwich. Now if I give him the sandwich, I have done a good deed, and I feel good about it. The hungry man feels grateful to me, and even if he cannot repay me for my kindness, possibly he will try to help someone else when he has the chance. So this is a transaction that benefits both the giver and the receiver.This is socialism in a nutshell.
But see what happens if the government gets involved. The government takes my sandwich from me by force. Consequently, I am a reluctant giver. The government then bestows my sandwich on the hungry man. Instead of being thankful to me, however, the man feels entitled to this benefit. In other words, the involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the result is exactly the same.
Now let's keep the same scenario but change the outcome. I am approached by the hungry man, as before, but this time, instead of agreeing to share my sandwich, I refuse to do so. Along comes a third man, who pulls out a gun, points it at my head, and forces me to hand over my sandwich to him, upon which he gives it to the hungry guy. What is the moral quality of the gunman's action? I think most people would consider him an unscrupulous thug who should be apprehended and punished. Yet when the government does precisely the same thing--forcibly seizing from some in order to give to others--the liberal insists the government is acting in a just and moral manner. This is clearly not true."
Participating willingly in such acts, makes one a socialist.
And if you think ONE TIME or minimal participation does not a socialist make, consider what defines other labels.
Do you count the dead bodies to see if there is a pattern before calling someone a murderer?
What of a meat eater? It only takes one time, unless that person swears it off.
If you have ever cast a vote, you would not require more to become a 'voter' either.
So yes. There are a number of socialists who might not likely consider themselves as such, but the fact remains, until they are willing to fight it off, (and some actively do) they are what they are.
I don't mind you being ignorant about all of this really. I understand you think that you are a pretty bright kid. I get that. This is a good opportunity for youngsters such as yourself to open eyes a bit, so I am obliging with an answer.