Marcel Popescu writes: > Colin Rafferty writes: >> Marcel Popescu writes: >>> Socialism: the (advocacy of) intervention of the state in voluntary >>> transactions. In extenso, whenever there is a state, or advocacy of a state, >>> there is socialism, for the state cannot exist without interfering with >>> voluntary transactions (otherwise, it would only be a company). >>> The world per se cannot be evil; evil only has meaning wrt persons. Yes, all >>> people are evil. >> Well, Tom is right. You are using a completely different definition >> of the word than the rest of the Enlish-speaking world uses. >> In the real world, socialism is defined a little more tightly than >> that. > You failed to show me your definition. I don't have a personal definition. I use a generally accepted on, like from Merriam-Webster. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done >> Of course, by your definition, every government is socialist > That was the point. Actually, that was my point. If you redefine a common word to have your own personal meaning, you can apply it however you want, but no one will agree with you, since no one has the same underlying assumptions. Everyone else is speaking English, but you are speaking some parody of it instead. >> This does not make them the same. > Strawman. Hitler and Stalin weren't the same. However, they were both > socialists, which was my point. But only by your personal definition, not by the one the rest of the world uses. -- Colin
