Interesting reducto ad absurdum. But meaningless to this discussion – because nobody could conceive of such a government, except for someone intentionally gaming the system to avoid the label of socialist. Clearly the intention of such a government would be complete ownership of all the means of production in society, with florists being a special exemption, so such a government would be socialist.

Most Communist states in the Warsaw Pact failed to meet your definition of “socialism”; they tolerated limited private agriculture.

There you have it – they “tolerated” this. The presumption was that ownership was by the state – with special permission granted for private ownership. I do not see any serious Democrat advocating such a position, or being anywhere near a slippery slope to such an argument.

Yes, now anyone who speaks out against the Left is a McCarthyist and Crypto Racist.

Nope. There are many serious conservatives who are neither McCarthyite, or racist.

The label is best saved for those who are.

As soon as the socialists move to North Korea, Nicaragua, Venezuela or Cuba, urban.

A reasonable point. Although Nicaragua and Venezuela both have active stock exchanges, which is a great indicator that a country is not “socialist” – but I’ll grant that Chavez is trying to move it to being a socialist country.

But anyone who would like government to completely own and control all property and means of production should look at North Korea and Cuba (and the former Soviet Union) as instructive.

Yes, now anyone who speaks out against the Left is a McCarthyist and Crypto Racist.

Thought police indeed.

Politically Correctness is running wild!

It is a pity that Charles Krauthammer has never learned that.

But by your definition, I would not be a socialist if I sought government ownership and operation of every factory in town, except the florists. Because a “socialist” wants government ownership and operation of ALL means of production.

Most Communist states in the Warsaw Pact failed to meet your definition of “socialism”; they tolerated limited private agriculture.

“Do you think that Obama is a natural born American citizen?”

Probably. Hawaii is apparently pretty relaxed about helping anybody born there, prove it.

“Great. Then every Republican who is out there defending Social Security right now is a socialist. Enjoy your foxhole.”

Interesting point: how should political economists categorize putting over a Ponzi scheme, for the benefit of a state? Uberlumpenproletariat? It sure isn’t honest, or prudent.