It matters in the context (of the argument) that this is an example of socialism. This is not a case of taking private property and making it public. It's a case of transferring private property to a wealthier owner who will return more money to the government, and increase his own wealth at the expense of the rightful owner.Originally Posted by Confed999
I'm not saying it's not wrong, it clearly is wrong. I'm just saying it isn't socialism, since the intent is only to make more money. The beneficiaries are the government and the corporation, and the victim is the little guy who can't afford to "fight city hall".
Sure, the liberals like it because it gives the government more money and more control. I agree. Even so, I can't call it socialism because it doesn't redistribute the wealth to the less fortunate, it does the opposite.