I was thinking about the current United States administration's move to take stakes in US companies, something that is somewhat unusual here. I saw others say it was socialism, but is it? Here's definitions of communism and socialism:

Communism is an economic and political system advocating common ownership of the means of production and distribution, with the goal of a stateless, classless society where resources are shared based on need. While rooted in the philosophy of Karl Marx as a stateless and classless ideal, its implementation has historically involved authoritarian states led by a vanguard party, such as in the model developed by Vladimir Lenin. Key features include the elimination of private property, social classes, and money, though different communist philosophies exist, including libertarian and authoritarian interpretations.

Here is a definition of socialism:

Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by collective or public ownership of the means of production (factories, resources, etc.), leading to a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources. It aims to address the perceived shortcomings of capitalism, such as inequality and poor working conditions, by promoting shared responsibility and access to basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare. However, the term encompasses diverse and often conflicting ideas, from democratic and decentralized models to authoritarian, state-controlled economies, and its implementation has led to vastly different outcomes historically.

So given these two definitions, purchasing stakes in these companies, if there was nothing more to it than the face value of it, isn't actually stateless as communism would tend toward. There's no evidence that the money being returned from the investment will make it back to the people at ground level. Either it will be there to feed an army to beat the public into compliance or it will be a bonus check for the outgoing administration to escape with trillions of dollars to Russia.

Anybody can become angry, that is easy, but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power and it is not easy.

I think we all understand why this image is absurd. Whether modern Christians want to believe it or not, Jesus was liberal minded. He taught a message of universality and aversion to greed. That being said, it's really hard to know exactly what has been added into the Christian bible as a matter of political council and what has truly been said by the characters.

So, this is something Dems have to do. They know how the system operates when it effectively serves the people at large, the greater good, so, they only go low when forced to. Nobody can change the fact that it's a reaction. It's not an affirmation.

This is a philosophically perfect, well-structured letter, that covers all the necessary background ethics. Not a single bit of excess, or a single concept missing in making the point. It affirms the reactive state of the decision and explains the ideal situation based on precedent and functional universal ideology.

Not taking actions like this is tantamount to just giving a free pass to the current administration to do whatever they want. It's become our duty to do unethical things, in reaction, to block the effects of the unethical moves of the other. This is truly Machiavellian (not the distorted modern view), doing something that may appear unethical, but serves the greater good.

The current "strong man" administration are nothing more than cheaters and liars pretending to keep it legal to avoid consequence. We have to produce consequence wherever we can.

Think differently, but know when it's your duty to think the same...