At 10:27 11/06/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:
>Thaptly named alister "air" writes:

Ha.  Well done, Martin.  Name jokes... haven't heard those since... oh,
about third grade.

>What would you call the person who performs the general's leader job,

*ELECTED* is what I'd call them under socialism, Martin.  They'd be *VOTED*
in by the rank and file.  They would have no title.

>> One might just as well say that the public service, with all its
>> management hierarchy, is also socialist, or that universities are
>> socialist.
>
>They are.  Well, private universities aren't, I suppose, or at least
>they are less so.

No, they're not.  I work in a University, and it's no more socialist than a
private one.  The differences are virtually zero.

>I didn't say Norway was socialist.  Where did you get that idea?
>Norway's economy is capitalist.  Norway has implemented solialist
>programs.

No.  Norway has implemented liberal programs.  Unless, of course, Norway
has returned privately-run enterprises back to the hands of the workers, of
course...

<<collins def which I mostly agree with snipped>>

>By that definition, the system comprising the military and the people
>(the members of the military being people) is a socialist system.
>
>I suppose you will back off on your "unsupportable by any definition"

No, I will not back off.  You are absolutely wrong when you claim that the
troops own the guns.  They do not, and never ever will.  The grunts in the
army have little or no control over their lives... do you think they
*elect* to be totally subserviant to their superior officers?

Furthermore, the military *can not* be isolated from everyone else.  They
are not an economic system - they are merely a part of one... any more than
an individual corporation is an economic system in and of itself.

>claim.  Or maybe you will just disparage the Collins dictionary.  Both
>tactics are predicted by the Chomsky model.  You will somehow draw the
>boundary so that you are in the clear, so that you can say are good
>and they are bad.

So, you're wrong on this one again.  I neither disparage the Collins def
nor back off from my claim.  I dispute your interpretation.

Alister