Seriously, you think that the ever-expanding wealth disparity in the entire western world is a symptom of a socialist planet?
Get a grip. Just because you haven't obtained your Libertarian paradise (which AFAICT would be hell on earth and quickly devolve back to Feudalism) doesn't mean that the word and the political philosophy don't still have distinct meanings.
Socialism is not an all encompassing term for 'anything a Libertarian disagrees with'.
Never said it was an all encompassing term, just an all encompassing practice. The term means social ownership of the means of production. If the political structure of a society wants to pretend regulation, licensing, permissions, incentive/punitive taxes, bail-outs, take-overs and nationalizations are not effectively the same thing as (at least partial) social ownership; that's society's business, not mine.
I cannot understand the political philosophy of socialism any better than I can understand another's faith, nor do I try. Socialist agendas may not be marked as such on the packaging, but that doesn't mean the ingredients didn't come from the same farm.
I have no great plan for society. I am of the mind that the "problem" of stable society is as insoluble as determining what the product prices should be in a marketless society. So, I also don't think anyone else socialist or otherwise has a great plan for society (visions perhaps, but nothing practically actionable), but I don't think that stops policymakers from tinkering when they can.
I have no idea what a Libertarian paradise would be, and I have offered none. Since I have no power to stop the looming dissolution of social order, nor predict the exact time or nature of the chaos; I can only hope to eek out an existence somewhere. But I will continue to remind men such that they may listen, that it was not the pursuit of liberty that brought man's enslavement, but the pursuit of enslavement.
"If the political structure of a society wants to pretend regulation, licensing, permissions, incentive/punitive taxes, bail-outs, take-overs and nationalizations are not effectively the same thing as (at least partial) social ownership; that's society's business, not mine."
Current society is not run on principles or aims anything like the means of production being in the ownership of the workers.
You can pretend all you like that "OMG Socialism!" is taking over the world, but the reality is far from it in both aims and current direction.
You don't have to understand another's religion or political views to understand what those things are, and you have failed.
As for the looming dissolution of social order - LMFAO. You're a wingnut. Get help.
Get a grip. Just because you haven't obtained your Libertarian paradise (which AFAICT would be hell on earth and quickly devolve back to Feudalism) doesn't mean that the word and the political philosophy don't still have distinct meanings.
Socialism is not an all encompassing term for 'anything a Libertarian disagrees with'.