You still haven't told us how socialism can be implemented without violence?

At what stage short of actually shooting people would you renounce the use of violence to enforce the socialist policies you advocate?

JDJ

Can I please elaborate on your last question:

"At what stage short of actually shooting people, setting up vast networks of Gulags, declaring millions to be insane and locking them away for life, exiling entire ethnic groups as inherently fascist (again by the millions), would you renounce the use of violence to enforce the socialist policies you advocate?"

If socialism is 'for the people', even for just the largest classes in society and excluding others from any political process [see above], then it does seem to be little more than fascism in the hands of those largest classes - or the Party of the largest classes - or the Leader of the Party of the largest classes. No, Hitler wasn't being ironic when he called his party the "German National-Socialist Workers' Party', because that's just what it was: a fascist-socialist party with the backing of the workers.

Joe

Loudmouth,

After what the Soviets did, I'm not surprised. As I said in my original post in this thread, I think the biggest problem is that [the left has] been discredited by those with an illogical opposition to markets and by those who want nationalization for its own sake rather than for efficiency gains.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine,

WTF do you mean? Why do you think changing economic policy in a way that favours those who aren't already rich would result in violence? Are you anticipating the rich literally hiring mercenaries to prevent a tax increase?

Whatever it is you're anticipating, I don't think there's any need for a change in law enforcement procedure. Existing regulations allowing cops to use reasonable force but preventing them from using excessive force should be sufficient. Or if you're referring to sentencing, it's simple enough: the punishment should fit the crime.

Stop trying to evade the question and just have the intellectual honesty to answer it.

What if the people you're trying to force into submission and obedience don't agree? Do you agree with using violence to force them, or not?

It's no use appealing to 'reasonable force' because
a) what is reasonable is precisely what's in issue - more circularity on your part
b) if your would-be subject/slave doesn't agree, the state's armed goons will escalate it. Won't they? If he uses weapons to defend himself against their aggression, they will use weapons back and escalate with a view to forcing him to obey.

Won't they?

So at what stage short of actually shooting people do you renounce the use of violence to enforce your socialist slave philosophy? Answer the questions.

Jardine -
"Stop trying to evade the question and just have the intellectual honesty to answer it."
You try to evade questions by ignoring them and telling me to stop evading one that I genuinely didn't understand, and complain about my intellectual honesty when you've ignored the answers I've previously given!

"What if the people you're trying to force into submission and obedience don't agree? Do you agree with using violence to force them, or not?"
I AM NOT TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION AND OBEDIENCE!

Now I why can't you comprehend the above?
Is it simply that you're too stupid?
Is it that you're trying to fool readers into thinking that everyone who doesn't share your economic philosophy must support violence, but you've failed to realise that I'm not stupid enough to let you?
Is it that you're just too lazy to consider the possibility you may be wrong?

(The above isn't merely rhetorical – I would appreciate an answer (though better still would be to remedy the fault).

I don't have a slave philosophy. On the contrary, I favour conditions where there's more high value work available and people's standard of living is less dependant on money.

In principle, I try not to be part of any "ism" - except vegetarianism. I don't force that onto others. I don't want the eating of meat forced onto myself.

But my dreams and my happiness do require a "larger" group of people around me who share a similar outlook - as I am VERY community minded.

In perspective: Where I live we have a business group, funded by a (council imposed compulsory levy) - with the groups executive committee having full rights to do whatever they wish with the funds and getting $105,000 per year - a form of socialism and many on the committee are well off real estate agents and property developers.

Other community groups have to raise all of their own money. One time I spent 12 hours at a fundraising event for a group I'm involved with.

Generating interest can be difficult, in a very conservative society - but when people have seen projects (I've undertaken) that came to fruition - many people have been impressed. Recently I received a very good newspaper story.

You can actually force people into socialism like I mentioned above in Australia (sounds strange I know). My attitude is to be positive, and I do my best to get as many volunteers on board with not for profit groups I'm involved with.

I really don't want to sit around with a few others drinking tea and coffee.