: : The idea that a socialist nation is necessarily bereft of personal freedoms is ludicrous. : Tell me of a perfect socialist state. In fact, tell of of ANY socailist state which has been successful in protecting natural freedoms.
Good point, since Che didn't assert that socialist states are perfect. But as long as we're seeking perfection, perhaps you can name a capitalist state that provides all citizens with enough food, clothing, shelter, and affordable medical care to enable them to enjoy their "natural freedoms".
: :The idea that a capitalist nation, by virtue of its economics, assures personal
: :freedom is equally ludicrous. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia's
: :anti-sodomy law, the jack-booted thugs that you fear took one step closer to
: :the bedroom. When it upheld the right of states to randomly stop drivers or
: :set up "check points" to randomly test a drivers sobriety, those same
: :jack-booted thugs reached in to pull you out of the drivers seat. Capitalism
: :can exist in totalitarian countries, just as socialism can exist in democratic
: :countries.
: I came back just to clear up one thing -- I am in NO WAY in favor of anti-sodomy laws or "random sobriety tests". I am also for getting rid of such incompetent and worthless organizations as the BATF, and for vastly limiting the power of organizations such as the FBI and the CIA. They are nothing but a bunch of anti-freedom "fighters" who love to earn commission on making individual's lives miserable.
:Also -- notice those organizations are part of the GOVERNMENT -- the government you and your socialist allies would wish to expand.
Your dedication to freedom is inspiring. However, you're probably not
too concerned with the expansion of private-sector security thugs. I'm referring to those mercenaries of capitalism in the tradition of the Pinkerton Agency, whose job is to mow down any workers with the audacity to strike for better wages and working conditions. Busting citizen's heads for cash--it's a booming business here in the Land of the Free.
: : About you misconception of the Marxist view on personal property -- He meant
: : that the major means of production would not be owned by individuals, but the
: :state, not that you couldn't own a house or that an artisan couldn't own
: :his/her tools. Clear enough?
: Oh, all too clear. Since I am against monopolies of all sorts, giving the government a sole monopoly over "the major means of production" is about as bad as an idea as you can get. Just look at the brilliant government-owned Post Office monopoly right here in the U.S. of A. Since I don't get my mail about HALF THE TIME because they are a bunch of incompetent fools, you can see just how well monopolies work, government owned or otherwise.
You're not getting your mail half the time, and you still haven't figured out who's stealing it? Don't blame the Post Office, which by the way is now virtually a private enterprise.
: And as if those government workers are treated so much better in comparison to the private-sector workers -- I haven't heard of any UPS workers going insane and shooting everyone in their office.
I don't know about UPS, but if you haven't heard of the mayhem and sabotage that goes on in other private firms, you need to get to America more often.
: I love debating socialists, but I have to make sure I leave quickly from the room they are all in, lest I too get high off all the bongs they are evidently smoking.
It's perfectly all right to love something you're not very good at. To quote Bob Black, "A libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs."
