[yendu bwam]

Tell socialist Dole to keep her nose and the Federal nose the hell out of driver license business. I voted against Bowels, not for Dole.

Socialism is an economic system in which the government owns many of the large businesses in the society. The government (whether you like it or not) passes laws every day which are believed (and yes, sometimes they are poorly designed) to help protect citizens from questionable behaviors or dangers emanating from others. That's why in many places: you can't shoot guns into the air over crowds (because falling bullets can seriously injure people), you can't raise tigers and let them loose, you can't drive with poor eyesight, you can't transport radioactive and biological hazard materials through many neighborhoods, etc. etc.

[citizenK]

Please re-read your first sentence in the post to which I am responding. You say socialism is an economic system, and in the same sentence you qualify that remark by saying the government owns many of the large businesses in society. You have written an illogical statement regarding socialism. You think it's just an economic system, but even in your own words the government is involved in ownwership of "large businesses in the society." So if you think about what you wrote you can see that socialism describes the political system as much as it does an economic system. To be more accurate, you should come to understand that socialism is a manner of describing a particular form of political economy.

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.