CM>     I do not believe the goverment should have the right to force
  >     you to do anything you do not like or dissagree with. you may
  >     interpret this anyway you like , as a free individual etc... .
I am still not sure whether we are in agreement here or not.  I believe
in the need for laws, and all laws limit individual freedom.  I want a
law that gives me freedom of press, for example.  I also want laws that
punish people who murder other people.  I do not want to live in
anarchy; I do not want to live in a lawless society.  If the government
had no power to force its citizens to do anything, then it would be
unable to act to prevent robberies, murders, rapes, etc.
CM>     I believe people (all people) should be free to make there own
  >     choices in life, to be judged by there own (individual) merits
OK, Charles, I think we are in agreement here.  It's just that our words
have been meaning different things, and so we haven't been understanding
each other. I believe each person should be judged on their individual
merits also, and when *I* use the term "level playing field," that's
what I mean. I mean each person is judged by their individual merits.
Apparently, when you use the term "level playing field", you mean a
government controlled situation in which some people are given more
freedom or more rights than another, so that people are no longer judged
on their individual merits.
This happens a lot in communication.  People often mean different things
when they use a word, and each thinks the other understands them, when
they don't.  I'm going to ask you to stop being so defensive.  I'm not
out to get you, Charles.  I really am trying to communicate with you.
You and I have learned different meanings for words we both use.  If
we're going to be able to talk with one another, we've both got to try
to figure out what the other person is *really* saying, rather than
just simply reacting to emotionally charged terminolgy.
  >     not as a group or race. under scolistic goverment, the goverment
  >     makes laws to force people ie taking away there freedom to choose.
OK, again the confusion.  To me, there is no such thing as a socialist
government.  When I talk of socialism, I am talking of a way in which
money is handled, in which ownership is handled.  And that way of
handling economics can exist under several different forms of
government.  For example, I belong to a food co-op.  By belonging to a
food co-op, I am able to get food cheaper than if I always bought it at
stores.  No one person owns this food cooperative. A group of us operate
it together.  No-one makes a profit from it; no one person runs it.  To
me, this is an example of a small socialist group.  It is operated by
consensus.  We all talk together until we reach a decision everybody can
live with.  Then that's what we do.  The U.S. government has absolutely
nothing to do with it.  Neither does the state government.
Obviously, when you talk of socialism, you are talking about some form
of government, and not about things like my food co-op.  It may be that
I would not like the socialism you are talking about either, although I
don't really know because I still haven't quite figured it out.
                           Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ NR>  Don't move that rock. He lives under there.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1
---------------