Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ChurtleDawg

It’s not socialism because it doesn”t require violence or coercion.

That is to say, it’s not socialism because it doesn”t require violence or coercion.


31 posted on 08/18/2011 7:53:33 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Or, more accurately--reason serves faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: ChurtleDawg

If it doesn’t require violence or coercion, it cannot be socialism.


37 posted on 08/18/2011 8:00:30 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Or, more accurately--reason serves faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: reasonisfaith

but the definition of socialism, in the most pure form, is collective ownership. It can be voluntary, like a commune or an Israeli kibbutz.

the population of alaska getting paid by the oil companies, in an equal amount per person, without regard to how much property is owned or how much taxes were paid by that person is socialistic. The very notion of “collective ownership” is socialism. In pure capitalism, the oil company would be the owner of whatever oil it drills, and the profits made would be shared among the shareholders.


51 posted on 08/18/2011 8:19:58 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson