The fact of the matter is that socialism deals not only with the ownership and running of the means of production, but also has everything to do with the ownership and running of the means of distribution in the economy. The sad fact is that the US is a socialist/corporatist state, albeit one with a facade of freedom. Too many people in this country think that freedom equates to running down to Walmart to participate in the latest consumer fad. Based upon what you have written (and you are not alone), I fear that you are trapped in this thinking too. I have recently commented on corporatism and socialism on another thread, and take advantage of hypertext to link you to it instead of copying it or trying to summarize what I have already written. Basically I provide an explanation of why viewing socialism simply as an economic system is inaccurate. You may also benefit from reading the posts that lead up to the post above to which I linked.
Your view of socialism is limited and naive. Perhaps if you are able to gain a greater appreciation of what socialism is, you will come to understand that Liddy Dole is a socialist extaordinaire. If you are able to rationalize socialism because you are concerned with the "general welfare," or that overhanded government policies (like drug testing teens as a requirement for drivers licenses) are ok because they are for the children(as you have indicated throughout this thread), or for whatever reason, that's fine. But then don't try to kid yourself or others into believing you are something that you are not.
BTW, being anti-socialist does not mean one cannot support a regulated society governed by just laws. Socialism and corporatism are about the politics of government deal making between special interests, and using the force of the state to establish and maintain the relationships politicians forge between special interests. Some of the examples you give (shooting guns over crowds of people, raising tigers, transporting radioactive waste, etc.) sound like reasonable measures to protect society. However, you should come to understand that most laws written are done so to protect the interests of special groups in our society, not for the protection of the general public (welfare) as you apparently believe.
Also, I have in fact followed this whole discussion (as yet some 200 odd posts) and I although I take issue with your view of socialism and your view of that the US as a democracy, I must admit that I too do not want kids driving around on drugs. However, we must not lose site of the forest for the trees. Drug testing is a terrible policy and will not work as a means of keeping kids off drugs or teen drivers off drugs as proponents want it to. Drug testing in this manner runs against the grain of our time tested principle of justice "innocent until proven guilty" and forces people (yes, even teens are people, even if they don't have rights according to SCOTUS) to prove their innocence. Drug testing in this manner is a slap in the face to the purported freedoms our country espouses. Drug testing is good for drug testing companies and the polticians who garner their favor by making such tests mandatory. The fact is, driving around on drugs (for teens or anyone else for that matter) is already illegal. Why must you insist on supporting Dole's proposal? Why not punish people who actually do drive around on drugs (especially teens) by revoking their driving licenses as someone suggested in one of the first few posts on this thread?
Others on this thread are right, you are being sold a bill of goods that play into your emotions. Alternatives always exist where it comes to public policies and laws. Many of us on this thread think drug testing is the wrong approach because it does not mitigate the risk with driving per se, it only deals with people who may have taken drugs in the recent past. I argue that suspect drivers (i.e., people weaving down the road, driving erratically, etc.) be tested for impairment and/or intoxication. Testing everyone for prior drug use is a shotgun approach that is not indicative of a free society, in which we supposedly live.
First, you can define anything anyway you want. If you define as what we have as socialist, then we're socialist. That's axiomatic. Most people in this world would not call the US a socialist state (because they use a different definition from you). The examples I gave are reasonable measures that a government can take to prevent harm to others (even at the expense of some personal freedom). The two are frequently opposed - and governments have to grapple with that. (Only true libertarians do not realize this.) I fully recognize that many laws are written to protect special interests - and to a degree which I abhor. But that is also in the nature of a democratic state. Groups of people (through their right of free association) organize to lobby governments to do what they want. If they go to far, citizens can pull their representatives any time they want. Finally, I NEVER stated that most laws are for the protection of the citizenry!!! However, many laws are indeed passed with that in mind, and many of those do work.
I just want kids on drugs not to be able to get drivers licenses - just as I want kids who can't see not to be able to get drivers licenses. If that's socialist by your definition, so be it. If I want laws passed that help protect my children from evil in society, and that's socialist (it isn't), so be it! C'mon, citizenK, get some perspective!
The funny thing is, neither Liddy nor anyone else has made a case that there is some current drastic problem with "kids", or anyone else for that matter, driving around wacked out of their mind. So there is no one to punish. She wants to create a "class" of people that can be punished, not for being a danger to the public, but for having an unaccepatble chemical trace in their body. Its just another elitists "everything you do in life is a priveledge, and we decide the stipulations" mentality. People such as Liddy are so drunk with power that they have no place in a free society and are a danger to all.
Testing everyone for prior drug use is a shotgun approach that is not indicative of a free society, in which we supposedly live.
Ah, but he already told us that the "government" can make whatever laws it wants, and if "we" don't like them, we have to vote them out. We are at the whims of "the majority" he says. This poster is not a reasonable person by any stretch of the imagination. Even says the Constitution is a finite list of rights. The most politicaly ignorant poster I have ever come upon - has no idea what socialism and democracy are. Scary stuff.
I disagree (and so does the Supreme Court). I'm fully in favor of testing kids for drugs before they can attend school. Driving, as Hatteras says, as well as attending school, are privileges. Kids on drugs on the road endanger my family. Kids on drugs in school endangers my kids. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of testing kids in school with regard to sports and other extracurricular activities. I say, go to it.