Vocabulary Conflict

I don't know why I didn't see it earlier.  Actually, I did.  But sometimes recognizing something requires the vocabulary to describe it, and I didn't really find that until Saturday morning.
    I was at my uncles house in Antlers, having attended his sister's funeral the day before, and I was checking my Facebook.  One of  my conservamentators had posted an anti-Socialism article, and had introduced it by saying that any ideology concerned with redistributing wealth was an evil ideology.  And suddenly I understood.  The problem was simply a matter of vocabulary.  In years past, I've had the same problem in talking to my brother.
    Essentially it goes like this:
    Person A defines S as X, while person B defines S as Q.  Person A fails to notice that person B is talking about Q, and continues to rail against X (a "straw man" argument.)  Person B doesn't disagree with person A about X, but fails to see the relevance because X is not Q. 
     In this real life situation, X = redistribution of wealth, whereas Q = community crowdfunding.  And a failure to recognize each other's definition begets conversations like this one in response to this picture:
 

Me: " Meanwhile, a Social Democrat will stop by your house while you are out of town and pick up all your fallen tree limbs. I know, 'cause it happened to me!
"Him: "Which is great, but doesn't negate the evil of the ideology." 

...which set me to wondering why the Edmond Street Department would be considered the product of an evil ideology.  I thought to ask if my friend is doing anything proactive to abolish institutions of Social Democracy in his own community, such as the street department, parks department, water department, public schools, public library, fire department, police department, sanitation department, or any other organizations that are crowdfunded by the community he lives in.  But I didn't. 
    Now the illustration above doesn't define socialism as redistributing wealth, per se, but it does conflate the policy objectives of Bernie Sanders with Communism and Totalitarianism, which is a stretch.  But such is the mindset of my friend, and he's not curious enough to try to understand why others disagree with him.
    This is an observation I've made before about him and others.  He's not curious.  He's not interested in finding out what's true and what works, nor in understanding the point of view of those who do not share his opinion.  He neatly divides every issue into convenient categories, vigorously defending some while completely dismissing others if they don't fit his world view.  If any idea or opinion does not agree with his, it's not worth the time it takes to understand it.  As a result, he's prone to straw man arguments, especially on topics related to Socialism (Socialists want to replace Capitalism! ), guns (Obama wants to take away your guns!), and climate change.  And if you point it out, well there's always the ad hominim.

    This is not to say that my friend is not intelligent.  But we humans are prone to prejudices, including the exaggerated estimation of our own intelligence, that can act as blinders and produce a willful ignorance.  I'm not immune.  But I want to be curious.  I think it is a great virtue.  The danger comes when you decide that you've reached the end of your search for understanding.
    So what do I understand about the issue above?  If you ask an economist about redistribution of wealth, he will tell you that it is a byproduct of taxation policy.  If taxes are progressive and high, wealth redistributes down.  If taxes are regressive and low, wealth redistributes up.  The enlargement of the welfare state is a byproduct of the latter, as is the exacerbation of income inequality and slow recovery from economic shocks.  This wasn't just an idea on paper; this is what has happened in real life to real people since the end of World War II.
    My conservamentators outnumber my liberamentators two to one, and they are pretty vocal (typal? copy and pastal?) with their opinions on this subject, so I think I have a fairly good grasp on what they think:  The Socialists in the government have set up a system by which those who do not wish to work for a living can instead live off Government handouts, which are paid for by taxes on those who have a work ethic and have jobs.  Higher taxes on the wealthy are a way to redistribute wealth from those who have money (because they worked for it) to those who don't have money (because they refuse to work and wish instead to live off the Government.) People voted for Obama, and now support Bernie Sanders because they are hoping to get some of this "free stuff" they are promising.  What they fail to realize, and what all Republicans can see clearly, is that this creates a dependency on Government, which will eventually lead to totalitarianism, which is the goal of the Democrats.  This is also the reason that the recovery from the recession has been slow.  Also, they're probably all on drugs.
    There's no data or statistics that confirm any of this; in fact, it's all flatly refuted.  But it's in my Facebook feed everyday, and even though I disagree with it, I never want to be in the position where someone can say I don't understand it.  I remain curious.  And hopefully my understanding will increase.