Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Nicaraguan flaming- please move to net.flame
Message-ID: <1923@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Sep-83 11:02:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1923
Posted: Tue Sep 13 11:02:23 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Sep-83 22:15:59 EDT
References: <2758@uiucdcs.UUCP>, <1916@rabbit.UUCP>, <210@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 60

Well, here's where it belongs, at last!

Well, Mike, you manage to not mention one fact.  <Yes, fact.>
Every government that has tried socialism has failed in one
way or another.  Either they have turned into a dictatorship
(via one of several paths, some 'socialist' places never were,
no doubt) or they have failed by violent revolution. 
<Some, alas, with help from the USSR or the US.)

Why did they fail?  The simple reason is the fundamental
fallacy of socialism, namely that all people will act in an
'enlightened' manner, and continue to produce/act responsibly
when they can slack off.  <Of course, capitalism suffers from
a like problem.  Then again, so does any form of government.
I sometimes think tha the only necessary function of government
is controlling ambitious <What? Julius?> and ill-intended individuals.
How to decide who qualifies for control isn't easy!>

The US is certainly a socialist country, in that the same
fallacy is used day in/day out as a philosophy of government.
While the major political party that espouses such actions
does not use the label socialism (for a good reason, given
the emotional reaction to the word), their platform and actions
are directly socialistic.  <And have all the anti-social effects
of socialism, by the way.>  The fact that it's not called 
socialism <social security?> doesn't detract from the facts.

You mention the free housing/food/medical care in a socialist
society.  What you don't mention is the utter lack of freedom
in chosing what sort of food/housing/medical care you receive
under such a government.  Perhaps you are naive enough to think
that the 'government' always does right if it's socialist, but
a lot of us know better.  Socialists are no less human than anyone
else, they just insist on forcing everyone to make the same
mistakes the leadership makes.  See Great Britain <another
'non-socialist' country> for an example of where we're headed.
<If the North Sea runs dry, they're finished.>
Look at France (sure, it's a success.  Now start telling the whole
story.),  Cuba (the bankruptcy case of the USSR.  Arguing that
Cuba is successful is one of the most astonishing lies I've
ever heard.  Of course, Cuba is not very socialistic, when you
get down to it, the socialist fallacy has assured that.), and
any "Eastern Block" country.  <Again, not socialist or communist
any more, since the system failed for the usual reason, this time becoming
terroristic dictatorship. (build or I shoot!)>

Perhaps you want to live in a world where all innovation/creativity
is stifled in the name of the common good.  I don't.
Just because my government makes a mistake, I don't want to be 
forced to obey it.  The very premise of socialism requires that you
assume that the state is perfect and obey it without question.
Among the things that a socialist state would reject would be
your behavior in criticising the state.  

Your article belongs in net.flame, where I don't have to be polite
when ripping into it.    One of the delightful effects of flaming
is that I don't have to examine your sophistry point by point,
I can just ridicule it for what it is.

rabbit!jj