SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports that "socialism" was the most looked-up word on Merriam-Webster's site this year, a change the American dictionary publisher attributes to US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has positioned of himself as a "democratic socialist".
As a socialist (or communist) myself, I personally think it's great that especially people from the United States try to figure out the meaning of the word beyond McCarthyism. I'm glad that people show interest in politics and finding out about positions of candidates.
Past years winners are available on Wikipedia.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'Socialism' the Most Looked-Up Word of 2015 on Merriam-Webster
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 103 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are standing on my toes.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday December 18 2015, @05:54PM
GP is right. That 28% of the land that the federal government "owns" wasn't bought, it was appropriated by executive order. When the Feds can executive order any bit of land they want, then they own all of it, whether accounting books say so or not.
It isn't a troll. The Feds have interpreted the "interstate commerce" clause to mean that the feds have authority of every aspect of economy and anything they consider related. When the state owns every aspect of economy, many consider that communism. It's ironic when politicians decry communism while simultaneously believing in their own authority to regulate any part of it.
You don't actually have to say that you own something to effectively own it.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday December 18 2015, @08:52PM
Ownership is a human construct, not a property of the physical world. We aren't dealing in absolutes here. Does ownership exist in the USA? isn't a yes or no question, and it's silly to treat it as being so.
Here in the UK, the government has the right of 'Compulsory purchase order'. It's used only when necessary, and the 'victims' are compensated, so it's hardly reasonable to call it communism. You're right that in an idealised 'pure ownership' society, the government wouldn't have any such power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 18 2015, @10:09PM
That 28% of the land that the federal government "owns" wasn't bought, it was appropriated by executive order.
If it's executive order, then you'll be able to point to the presidents who appropriated most of that land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 19 2015, @12:59AM
I know! I know! Call on me, Teacher khallow!
Thomas Jefferson, Louisiana Purchase. He was also going to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from the same people, but it hadn't been built yet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @02:43AM
Thomas Jefferson, Louisiana Purchase.
No. Let's read the post that kicked this off.
GP is right. That 28% of the land that the federal government "owns" wasn't bought, it was appropriated by executive order. When the Feds can executive order any bit of land they want, then they own all of it, whether accounting books say so or not.
The Louisiana Purchase was a purchase from a foreign power, France. Hence, it doesn't qualify as an example for two reasons: it wasn't appropriated by executive order and it wasn't obtained from US citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 19 2015, @07:50PM
OK, Not Tom Jefferson. How about Alaska? The Gadsen Purchase? Southern Ontario on the Plains of Abraham? Manhattan? Palau? Is there any way I can get extra credit?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @02:45AM