Suspended 5 games for admiring Fidel Castro

Libertarians generally believe in a minimal government, not a complete dissolution of it. People who believe in no government are, surprise, called anarchists. I want very little government, but I still want there to be a government.

Look up Libertarian Socialist, its used interchangably with anarchist. Right-Libertarianism is different. Anarchism is not just no state, its no capitalism, no patriarchy, no gender binary, etc.

This statement is an example of where something is semantically (and we're using an extremely loose meaning of that term here, as even the semantics of the claim betray its logicality; a better fit would be linguistically), but not ontologically, possible. It's the same thing as demanding that an omnipotent being create a square circle.

Private property cannot be theft because theft is the unlawful possession of another person's private property. The claim that property is theft is falsidically paradoxical and both prima facie and ipso facto illogical.

In other words, stop saying this. It is objectively untrue.

It is a unlawful possession of another persons property, it belongs to the workers of the workplace.

Wonderful how you just leap straight from a boilerplate, buzzword-ridden claim like 'Property is theft, maaaaaaan,' into 'workers workers workers hammer and sickle dirt farming convention 2012'.

1. Private property is not and cannot be the unlawful possession of another person's property. You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see the paradox inherent in your claim.

2. You claim that private property is an 'unlawful' possession. This is yet another paradox, and is also objectively false. No country either has, or logically could, define private property as the unlawful possession of another person's property.

3. There was no previous mention of any sort of workplace. You simply said 'Private property is theft.' Private property is any property not owned by the public, which is to say, almost all property.

I mean I could go on, but the illogical nature of your statements is just painfully obvious.

Slavery also wasnt "unlawful" once. Private Property in leftist circles is solely privately owned means of production.

Here we go again...

Yes, that's true. Slavery was legal at various points in human history. However, to describe it as anything but illegal in today's world would be illogical and objectively false.

Also, stop doing that. 'Leftist circles' aren't an authority on the meaning of basic terminology. If you expect to debate, then use paradigmatic standards, not your fringe ones.

Doesn't change anything, the statement 'private property is theft' is both false and illogical/falsidically paradoxical.

Ok, Leftism does not allow private ownership of the means of production for it is seen as illegitimate ownership taken from the workers.

I disagree with this statement. I consider myself a leftist, and I also "allow private ownership of the means of production."

Then your not a leftist.

You are obviously misinformed about the types of socialism. Unlike most of you righties seem to believe, Socialism is very split up into different forms. You have everything from die hard socialism (North Korea/Cambodia) to democratic socialism. Many forms of Socialism want to keep varying forms of private property. The form I support wants people to still have private property, just not so much of it. It creates a world where capitalism and socialism coexist. Socialism is taken to mean complete takeover of corporations by the government. Well, I describe Socialism as a form of government that exists to serve the people, and to insure that when all else fails, the people can get basics such as healthcare, housing, food, transportation, education.

It doesn't actually add more bureaucracy. It cuts much of it significantly, to insure things move faster and smoother in the government. And what it actually adds is the Tribunal Branch. I take that name from the old Roman Republic, in which they had 10 Tribunes, and the job of these Tribunes was to make sure that any laws being passed would benefit the people. They eventually failed, because as much of the Roman government they were subject to massive corruption. What my Tribunal Branch would do is much the same. It would have an elected Tribunal Court, and these would be the ones that decided if Laws passed were popular with the people and if they were in fact beneficial to the people. They would be elected every 5 years, and would work closely with the Supreme Court (also elected).

There would be, if people would give it a chance. But every time a socialist nation pops up, the Western nations embargo it, then overthrow its government, then prop up a brutal dictator in its place because apparently that's better than socialism.

Fucking irony.

Yes I'm a leftist and you seem to confuse leftism with far-left socialism. Please don't be such an elitist.(for lack of a better word) I believe that workers(and sometimes the state) should have control most of the means of production, but I do not think that we should not allow a person to own a factory.(or whatever) The worker should choose where he/she would rather work. To me, the choice would be easy, but other people may look at things differently and I respect their choice as well. I could go more into detail, but I feel like it would be a waste of time.

Socialism is defined as workers or societal ownership of the means of production. Not partial ownership, ownership.

While I disagree with you, I'll let it pass. Societal ownership, you said it. Society is not just the "working class."

No, but its implied to be held in common.

I don't really care about your intrepretation. The fact is that rich people are just as much a part of society as poor.

You completely misquoted me. I said different types of socialism. Socialism is an umbrella term for many different types of government. Some of which can work together with both socialism and capitalism.

NEWSFLASH: Not all leftists are die hard commies.

Oh boy this is gonna be good.