Slashdot Mirror
High-Speed Trains in the US?
demondawn asks: "Countries around the world are researching and adopting high-speed rail systems, but the U.S. seems to be behind the bandwagon. How do Americans feel about the adoption of a high-speed rail system in the U.S.? How do people in nations that have already adopted high-speed rail feel about their services? And how about tourists who have travelled either to or from the U.S. feel about public transportation around the world?"
Paid for willingly...or taken from without consent?
You have no legal choice as whether or not to pay your taxes.
you can practice tax evasion in any shape, form and fashion that would be deemed legal under federal law.
Irrelevant. You can murder, steal, rape, jaywalk, and all sorts of things, regardless of whether it's legal. The whole *point* of discussing political/social/economic systems is to define what's allowed, not what's physically possible.
With the US military however, once you enlist, you are officially US Government property
That's the Communist aspect I spoke of. In Communism, everyone is essentially, in a non-trivial way, "government property".
And to boot, the soldier is as expendable as the very machines they use in battle. So no, there is no "all for one and one for all".
The "all for one, and one for all" aspect I'm referring to is the unity and cohesion of the individual units. Sometimes the 'one' sacrifices for the 'all', and sometimes the 'all' goes out of their way to help the 'one'. My point is simply that this is a fundamental aspect of the military--it's key to the cohesion of the 'hive' mentality required for an effective and strong military.
There is nothing wrong with socialism. In fact, the open source movement is based on socialism.
Agreed, which makes your admonishment of Amtrak somewhat confusing. The government providing rail service is a Socialist endeavor (and one I fully support). The government providing water, roads, schools, and yes, the military, are all Socialism.
However when you force socialism through the rule of law and against the will of some people (even if only one person), you get the very definition of Communism.
By the above definition (which contradicts the definition in your sig), every law that is Socialist, yet not unanimous, is Communism? There are people who do not believe in requiring automobile makers to include seat belts, there are people who do not believe in a minimum wage, there are people who do not believe in overtime, and there are people who do not believe in Social Security. All these things are Socialism, and they are all enforced by the rule of law. It's not reasonable, however, to call any of them Communism.