"Take the government  hands out of my medicare?"

So what is your solution? stop the programe? Give it to the private sector?

I read somewhere that America lags behind Greece in social services and the quality of life! I want Greek care! Greek social services for all!

For people who want a more powerful government because they want business to be responsible to it, then my question is who is the government responsible to? And for the people who think our government is responsible to the people beyond a very limited extent, or who think it can be done, are in lala fantasy land.

The solution is simple. Do not allow power to concentrate in the hands of a few, rather distribute it widely.

You're saying that advocating freedom from tyranny is offensive?

When the thread's topic, reliance on government, necessarily includes the idea of taking from people and limiting people's freedoms, there's no other word for it. I'm not going to be dishonest because someone finds the truth offensive.

If you can't call your position what it is, you know it's indefensible. If you want to defend tyranny, defend tyranny. Don't defend a government without limits and take offense at calling it a government without limits. That's just weird. To determine what success people are allowed to have is to make them slaves. Pretty language doesn't change this fact. Saying you hate slavery while claiming that anyone has the right to determine the success of others doesn't make you an opponent of slavery. Taking offense at words doesn't distance you from the meaning of those words. It's a silly game I have no desire to engage in. You can take up self-image and self-deception issues with a licensed psychological expert.

I would explain why my position isn't racist and mock you for calling it racist, like I recently did with xeno.

We're capable of discussing our frames of reference. Effectively he's accusing me of employing the straw-man fallacy, but without an explanation of where I'm wrong in my analysis of his position. I've called him on repeatedly employing that fallacy in another thread. This thread has only the vaguest of position statements. Granted, he would undoubtedly argue that socialism does not necessarily entail tyranny (it's just a coincidence that the ones I mentioned and every other one on the globe and in history existed with tyranny), but I'll wager he'd have objected similarly if my post stated that socialism inherently enslaves men to the state. Slavery doesn't have a positive connotation either, so he'd label me offensive and appealing to fallacious logic. But I'm the one capable of explaining how socialism enslaves men, exploits men, and crushes freedom. And I'm not seeing thoughtful explanations in response, just attacks on straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks.