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