Opposing the legalization of illicit drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and marijuana, doesn't make me a socialist. Supporting government restrictions over these harmful substances, doesn't make me a socialist either. Your argument is hollow and has no basis in factual truth. Law abiding citizens/societies have every right to restrict personal behavior of individuals, that they deem harmful to society at large. You may consider that socialism, but you'd be wrong. Its law and order that reigns supreme in a civilized society and not chaos and anarchy.
IMHO, one of the more constructive things we can do is encourage the President to appoint Clarence Thomas clones to the Supreme Court..
On that, we can agree. Clarence Thomas is a great American and a fine SC Justice.
And if the Constitution allows for lawmaking in this area, 'society' can enllist the government to help. In the case we're talking about, it doesn't. Consider: Alcohol prohibition relied on a Constitutional amendment. Wise or unwise, at least it was legal. The National Firearms act relied on sleight-of-hand: Congress does have the authority to levy excise taxes. (there's a USSC precedent that I can't think of the name of now that says they should only levy taxes to raise income, not to control the citizens, but it hasn't been enforced in years). The deception here was that FDR never intended to issue the tax stamps.
This chicanery was the model for the MJ tax act. At least back then they gave lip service to the Constitution.
Now we have the CSA, which doesn't even pretend to be Constitutional. It's just the raw exercise of power.
I assume that some state constitutions, maybe even all of them, would allow the state to attempt to ban certain substances. It's interesting that the only state-level drug laws prior to the 'progressive' and 'new deal' eras were anti-Chinese (opium) laws in California and Colorado. Period. Prior to FDR, MJ was not regulated
You may consider that socialism, but you'd be wrong. Its law and order that reigns supreme in a civilized society and not chaos and anarchy.
The laws were put in place by the socialist-leaning FDR, and opposed by the conservatives. It is not at all obvious that the laws in question have done anything to make society more orderly; I'd say they've done quite the opposite.
Here's a great point for debate; you want to restrict the meaning of the word to its political-economic sense, that of possessing the goods of society in common, or some variant thereof.
I choose to acknowledge its conceptual links with other 'ideals', in addition to the obvious.
Socialism, broadly conceived, is the notion that all human desires, rights, and ambitions must be subordinate to, and where possible in the service of, the whole of society rather than in the service of individuals.
This view could argue that modern socialism is an attempt by the fearful to re-create the holistic social order of the Middle Ages, in which your place in life was defined and immutable under ordinary circumstances. Many soi-disant conservatives on this site yearn for a type of social-moral solidarity that would only be possible under just such a feudal regime. They have 'bought into' the basic premise of the iron logic of socialism; namely that the new and improved modern state, born to this world through the travails of WWI, is a perfect vehicle for the social transformation of this imperfect world. Such is their vanity.
The intellectuals of the various factions of 'socialists' have been striving for supremacy ever since that awful French Revolution. First communists and socialists, and then post-WWI the fascists, national socialists and welfare statists, all were convinced that the 'liberal' model of society as developed in Britain and America and copied in many other countries was a failure. The success of the U.S. War Production Board, for example, in rationalizing and expediting the production and delivery of war materiel was taken as proof that planning was superior to market competition from both an efficiency and a humanitarian point of view. The tragedy of the 20th Century is that for decades, few people argued with this view.
Since WWI, the entire world has raced towards the ascendency of the one perfect socialist state, which will plan the whole world! We live in a world much more chaotic than the one Orwell prophesied, but the ominous tendency of mankind to facilitate these totalitarian dreamers is equally frightening. There is no doubt in my mind that the leading and most successful candidate for the socialist crown of this world is none other than the good old U.S. of A. And some of these aspiring 'vanguard elements' are as American as apple pie and are posting on this forum.
The vain ambition to make perfect this imperfect world is the true enemy of liberty...and Constitutional government.
"Vanity. All is vanity."
Of couse we do. - Thats why we gave our states the power to run a criminal justice system, but only under our US Constitutional restrictions preventing violations of individual rights.
You may consider that socialism, but you'd be wrong.
You know very well why people consider what you advocate 'socialism'. You won't agree on what is plainly written in the constitution. You think society can change the rules, without amendment, to whatever they 'deem necessary'. That's a form of socialism.
Its law and order that reigns supreme in a civilized society and not chaos and anarchy.
Authoritarian tyranny by majority rule 'law & order' is just as chaotic as anarchy, as we see in our present WOD's. -- Respect for our constitution must be restored.