America is Already Socialist

America is already socialist, and it has nothing to do with welfare.  Socialism as a style of government is based on the fact that civilization is a social construct.  It is essentially the idea that everyone in a formal society (like a nation with its own government) has implicitly agreed to a social contract to support and conform to that society.  The other side of the social contract is that society makes it possible for all members to survive reasonably comfortably within society.  From a socialist perspective, this is where welfare comes from, however, the U.S. welfare system does not come from socialism.  It comes from Christianity, where welfare is a charitable, love-based thing.  Of course, most of this love-based charity seems to come from non-Christians, at least in the U.S.

I don't want to talk about actual Socialism though.  Most Americans, especially conservative Americans, believe that Socialism is defined as a system of government where all the means of production are controlled by the government.  This may be one way, and admittedly the most popular way, of enforcing the social contract of Socialism, it is not the only way.  It is, however, the way that most conservative Americans fear, and probably with just cause.  This brand of Socialism has been tried before, with mixed results.  The USSR spent most of its existence on a downhill slope, as its toxic mix of Socialism and Communism discouraged a good work ethic and marginalized the masses.  Ultimately, it fell apart.  The People's Republic of China has fared much better.  Aside from poor representation of the people and mass murder of its own citizens, China has managed to avoid the steady drop in productivity that the USSR saw.  In the end though, China is still finding that even the government itself fares better when some businesses are privatized.

In U.S. has largely feared this brand of Socialism since the beginning.  The very idea of government owned or controlled monopolies was derided by many of this nation's founders.  During certain periods of our history, merely discussing the merits of Socialism could result in imprisonment, despite the laws that supposedly protect American citizens from government discrimination based on religious and political opinion.  The fear of this kind of Socialism is still strong among conservatives.  The fact, however, is that it has existed since the very beginning.  The United States of America has already embraced what is widely considered the most toxic form of Socialism, though, on a very small scale, and this Socialism exists as a power, granted to the Federal government, by The Constitution of the United States of America.

The common definition of Socialism is a system of government where the government controls the means of production.  The government does not strictly have to own the means of production.  In practice, what this means, is that the government says who can and cannot produce things.  The government may or may not control distribution (controlling distribution is closer to Communism, though this depends on the specifics).  Merely regulating production does not qualify.  The government can impose regulations without explicitly saying who can and cannot produce a product.  Requiring a license for producing a product could qualify, but it is a bit of a stretch if anyone can qualify for a license by meeting some general guidelines.  U.S. Socialism limits production to specific individuals or sometimes small groups, who may extend that permission to a third party (technically this permission can be granted to any number of third parties, at the discretion of the individual or group, but it is far more common, now and historically, for exclusive production rights to be granted to a single third party).

Why has this not been realized and rectified?  Ironically, the most vocally anti-Socialist political party has put a great deal of effort and money into ensuring that this Socialist system is maintained and even significantly strengthened.  The Republican Party has worked tirelessly to further extend the duration and scope of government granted rights to production.  They call it "fair," despite the fact that those who have been granted these production rights often end up with profit margins far over 100% and have potentially unlimited profit margins.  Violation of these production rights once was only a civil offense that could only be punished with a moderate fine based on the profits lost by the controller of the production rights.  Over the last several decades, however, the violation of this Socialist system has become a very serious criminal offense.  The penalties have been extended to include jail time and exorbitant fines based on the amount of profits that the production rights owner could have or might have lost, without any burden of proof that any profits were actually lost.  It turns out that the most vocal opponent of Socialism is actually the driving force behind the most Socialist practice allows by the U.S. government.

What, exactly, is this Socialism?  Simple, intellectual property law.  The U.S. Constitution grants the Federal government the power to grant temporary monopolies over production of patented and copyrighted material.  Our modern law actually goes beyond what is allowed by The Constitution to include copyright for things that have not explicitly been copyrighted.  This system is Socialist, because the government controls the means of production by dictating who can and cannot produce patented or copyrighted works.  It is worse than this though.  The government does not actually directly control production.  It delegates the control of production to someone with a vested interest in the profitability of the product.  When pure Socialism puts the production in the control of the government, it does so with the intent to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain fairness for everyone.  The U.S. brand of Socialism does the exact opposite.  Ironically, the U.S. Constitution seems to predict this, as the stated purpose of this Socialist power is to stimulate progress in the arts and sciences.  Unfortunately, the government does not care about this anymore, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on personal opinion instead of Constitutional law, and the biggest sponsor of this Socialist system, the Republican party, is more interested in profits than doing what is right or fair.  This may be one of the biggest conflicts of interest in the history of the U.S., but the people are blind to fact that their biggest fear has been realized.

The real facts are these:  "Intellectual property" laws are more Socialist than any amount of government welfare.  The enormous costs associated with patent wars are ultimately paid by the general public, so this Socialism is actually far more toxic than directly government ownership of production.  The stifling of innovation is also bad for society, and it directly violates the Constitutional purpose of patents and copyrights.  The evidence provided by the media piracy "epidemic" proves that oppressive intellectual property laws are unnecessary to ensure that content creators receive fair compensation for their work (in fact, the evidence seems to indicate that weaker "protection" would actually help a majority of content creators).

When The Constitution was drafted, Thomas Jefferson, among others, expressed concern with the idea of giving the government control over any level of production.  He recognized the toxic Socialist influence it could have, and he has turned out to be right.  It is a crying shame that it has taken over 200 years for anyone to notice this, and it is especially concerning that a major political party that claims to oppose this kind of oppression is the biggest supporter of it.