The point about rules is that they ought to be arrived at through negotiation and through democratic and accountable processes. Its no point having rules if their imposition results in people breaking them. Rules by consent, rather than rules imposed by a minority on a majority. This is why I don't subscribe to the idea of being ruled over by somebody else.

Leaderhip, based on consent, ought to be the starting point for the implementation of rules. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is probably the most misunderstood of all Marx's ideas. It just means that the minority ruling class parasites in society follow the rules like the rest of us and stop stealing the fruits of our labour.

They will never be prepared to act in a democratic socialist fashion so we as Marxists must force them, as the majority class, to do so, in the same way that we are subordinated to their capitalist system. "The dictatorship of the capitalists" is the system we live in now but of course most of us would not recognise this reality.

Marx in referring to those totalitarians who mis-used his theories, merely asked to be saved from himself. Goodbye comrades.

Yeah - that's the oldest fallacy in the book, right?

"Save me from myself"....

I mean, you know, Jesus Christ tried to do that for us, and even He wasn't entirely successful (and you know, there's that "voluntary" thing again, right?)...

So I mean, ..... I kinda don't "get" the concept of a collective "without" government, that would be kind of an oxymoron, wouldn't it?

A collective has to have a government too, or at least, it has "representatives", right? Like, "here Fat Freddy, here's the rent money, go score us some pot, and try not to get burned this time"....

And then, "coercion" could be as simple as the majority imposing its will on the minority, right? And I mean, at that point, people oughta be free to leave the commune, and go join some other commune, right?

As you say, "someone" always gets coerced, it's either the workers, or the "bourgeois", but I mean, it's equally as bad that way, ain't it? You know, what difference does it make "who" gets coerced - at the end of the day, "someone's" still gettin' coerced, right?

I mean, the best way to play this thing, is to do "equal opportunity coercion", as you say - so the bourgeois clowns have to obey the same rules as all the rest of us. And that's certainly the intent in our system, it's just that... um.... money "allows" you to do certain things, like hire good lawyers and so on, and I mean, you know, it's also true that there's "good" rich people, and "bad" rich people, just like there's "good" workers, and "lazy" workers -

So, I really don't see how you're going to get much better than "equal opportunity". I mean, it's true that we really don't have that (yet), but we're gettin' there. You know, society moves in generations, not micro-seconds, right?

I just wanted to say I'm with you on this one and that I couldn't have said it any better myself. Much respect.

Social democracies like Sweden are moving more to the right because their socialist experiment is a complete failure. Same with France. Light years ahead according to whose definition? Those who don't work and expect something for nothing? I don't care about the library because it doesn't represent the entirety or even a major component of our government.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I salute the French Rudy.

Why would we try and be more like France when the french are desperately trying to become more like the US. They tried it, it wasn't fun.

So is there a point at which disparities in wealth and income become bad for society?

And is medical care a right?

__________________
I'm a hypocrite, I'm intolerant of intolerance. Hey, what's your Terrorist Score?

You answered your own question, it is because communist regimes have the tendency to become authorotarian dictatorships and they eventually require rulers to force people to give up what they work for for the "good of the common man." The reason for this is because it is not the nature nor should it be the nature of human beings to work for something only for it to go to someone else. People will not do that on there own and so someone, like stalin, hitler, mussolini, ect have to force people to do it. In a FREE world, people would work for what they desire and would be allowed to reap the benefits of their toils. Nobody, not any socialist, no matter what their intenitons may be, has the right to take that away from them.

Mental maturbation at its finest.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

"Disparities" in income demonstrate a healthy society. Societies will always contain people who work hard and lazy bums, people of great merit and little merit, people who are creative and people who are dead weight. A wide spread in income shows that society is rewarding people according to their merit, which is ultimately good for all.

No.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

How is it good for everyone for it to be bad for most people?