I think you might have a useful point in there somewhere, but using overly emotive terms ('the socialists', fascism, communism and freedom) isn't useful.

Its worth pointing out that 'the end of the road' is an implication that the extreme end of a political system is a goal. It's not, and it is rare anyone would argue that a hybrid economic system isn't the most sensible.

Since when did the concept of "freedom" become too emotional for rational discourse? Moreover, the fascists and communists are responsible for the murder of millions whenever they got into power so the negative emotive meaning of those terms are well-earned and not some rhetorical trick on my part.

NB: Socialism is the wider term and means that the individual serves or lives by permission of the society. Communism and fascism are two types of socialist systems, different in form but not function. In a communist society the government owns ALL the property as a matter of law. A fascist society allows private ownership of property but the government has unlimited power to use, direct, control or confiscate private property for the "good" of the society, i.e. private ownership is in name only. Guess which system the USA is moving toward?

> Its worth pointing out that 'the end of the road' is an implication that the extreme end of a political system is a goal.

It is an implication many people refuse to identify, that doesn't make it any less real. Your position is the same as that of a bank robber who refuses to identify that the end of his road is death or jail and then laughs at you when you point it out, that that is not his goal; his is to get rich.

> It's not, and it is rare anyone would argue that a hybrid economic system isn't the most sensible.

Am I suppose to be intimidated by the majority opinion? I am not. A "hybrid" system or the so-called "third way" in politics (a split between socialism and capitalism) are a complete sell out to the socialists and is not sensible but stupid if you value freedom. There are somethings that can't be split down the middle, its either/or, like Solomon and the baby. Some things are all or nothing, like honesty. Can you claim to be an honest man if you only steal on Tuesdays (or only steal from the "rich")? No. Social systems either recognize and protect individual rights or they abrogate them and consume and use individuals for their own ends. You can't have it both ways. Finally, you need to realize that by advocating for a "hybrid" social system, by the logic of it, what you will get is fascism.

> The implicit conclusion is that to make things "fair" we should socialize risk AND reward. How convenient for the socialists.

Straw man. Fairness means:

public funding -> public benefits

private funding -> private benefits

You don't know what a straw man argument means. Also, you drew the exact point the socialists wanted you to draw and thus proved my point. Who can argue with your little sketch of fairness? If the "public" does the funding shouldn't the "public" get the benefits? Of course, its a simple inference like a Sudoku puzzle with one number missing.

As I indicated, you need to widen your view. Where does public funding come from? Is it valid for the government to confiscate money from some people to give to other people (poor people, investors, kings; the recipient does not matter)? This is the fairness that I was referring to and the wider question; is government funding of investment a valid function of government? What is your standard?