Food is important and it is supported with tax payer money by some governments for that very reason. I think government action on it should be considered. Of course no changes should be made if the system isn't broken and and if they do it should be for the better or not at all. I'm not advocating socialism just for the sake of being socialist. When private is better- it's better.

About the straws you fully missed the point. What i'm saying is no matter how bad someone screwed up the straw industry it won't be a serious blow to society. By talking about supply and demand you are changing the subject

Yes but like you said, "you [need to] already have some necessary rationality to do this"- that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. You can't buy that original rationality and you can't buy the fact that rationality exists. The stuff you said is true but I think you are trying to answer to different topic than which it is relevant to. Money can buy things and make you happy- but money can't buy the fact that happy exists. When I talk about "money can't buy everything", it's in that way that i'm talking about (not to be confused as saying 'owning things doesn't make you happy').

To have one without the other? You mean pubic funded fire brigades that are managed by a private company? Yeah I can see that. On the other hand though, I see a lot of problems with a privately run police force. For example if the chief of police was making a profit from fighting crime, why would he not expand his business by creating more crime to fight?

What criterion do I use to say the government shouldn't make twirly straws but should collect tax for (and possibly run) fire brigades? The nature of the service and how fundamental it is to society. Also a strong consideration should be put into the negative effects that personal interests can create. If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, poor people wouldn't get any- but that wouldn't be such a big deal. On the other hand if fire brigades were run for profit and have private interests- poor people's houses would burn to the ground with fire crews doing nothing but maybe toasting a marshmallow over the flame. Even worse, maybe when business is quiet, a fire station may light some fires.

This may sound a bit vague but like I said I think it's a concept and not an actual system. The concept I subscribe to is that the back bones of society should be funded and maintained by the government. In some cases, This maintenance can be subcontracted out to private companies rather than micro managing- but not always (not for police for example). Any further than these fundamental social services is most likely going too far and will have too much of a stifling effect on the economy.

No not really. Like I said I think it can play a role along side and in conjunction with capitalism/private ownership. Even if the government didn't own any companies or what not, socialism can still exist in the form of taxation and social spending. It's more about regulation and distribution of a societies wealth. Once the state starts owning and controlling everything, that's when I would start to call it 'communism' or something around those lines. I am not for this total control and ownership concept as I think capitalism does play a role in innovation and economic growth. To be communist would be to destroy all the benefits of capitalism.

To me socialism is not an exact system but is a concept. In that way, it can be a bit vague but the general principle is that the resources of a society are best used with a coordinated effort to pool them together as opposed to spending in an un-coordinated and selfish way.

Where as some people think that socialism is a system to rival or replace capitalism, my idea of socialism works in tandem with capitalism. To begin with, a lot of industry is best left for private enterprise to deal with. There is nothing to gain from the government owning a twirly drinking straw company or being responsible for coming up with such ideas. Having said this though, these private enterprises provide for the socialist system by paying tax, as do the individual workers. Then there are the industries which are best put in control of the government. This is defined by the fundamental importance they have on society. Governance itself is one example. Other easy examples are; roads and infrastructure, police, and, fire departments. I think most people would agree that the things I have mentioned are best maintained with collective funding and government control. Where my opinion gets more controversial with some people is that I think socialism should cover health, education, power and public transportation.

Some people think that socialism is something alien and untested in the world- other than through the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc. This is not true at all. I'll point out this fact while also giving you the examples of the 'socialism' i'm talking about.

The US has a strong anti-socialist base but they have possibly the biggest socialist program in the world. I say possibly because i'm too lazy to check the fact- but it's fairly safe to assume that the worlds largest armed forces (US armed forces), which spends about as much as the next 10 biggest spenders in the world, is one of the biggest socialist program in the world. It's socialist because the money for it is raised by taxing the population. Rather than everyone having to be in a militia and own a gun or some other crazy system, money from the society is pooled together and used in a co-ordinated fashion.

Another example is the fire department. At some times and places in the world there once existed private fire brigades. When a fire happened, these private crews would arrive at the scene but if the home owner wasn't one of their paying customers- they let the house burn. While this private enterprise system could be replaced by some other type of private model, socialism fills the position very effectively instead. Again money from society is pooled together and spend in a co-ordinated way and provides a better service in both effectiveness and social morality.

I am strongly for socialism. This comes from two main points of view; 1) I think the ethical thing to do is to work together and help others as opposed to 'every man for himself'. 2) I think that 'team work' achieves more and thus it's not just about what is moral but what actually works better. One way to think of it is that we can either all buy a fire hose and a ladder- or we could pool the money together to pay for a professional team with a truck to service the town.

My take on drug abuse is that it isn't primarily the drugs themselves that are the problem but the user. That is to say the drugs have powerful and harmful effects, but the buck ultimately stops with the user who chooses to imbibe them. As physically addictive as some drugs can be, not everyone will; A) Be addicted if they try it once, and, B) Actually want to use the drug to begin with. It's the people who are depressed, self-harming, etc, who have drug problems. I think my point can be easily confused so i'll give an analogy: a magnetic sea mine is terribly destructive and can blow me to pieces (swap for drugs), but being a human of flesh and blood (swap for healthy life and psychology), there will be no magnetic attraction and we won't be drawn towards each other. On the other hand if I was a steel ship (depressed, etc), the magnet will be drawn to me and devastation will be the result. To recap again in one sentence; the mainstream point of view seems to be that drugs are like a virus which can effect anyone and are the problem in themselves where as I see the users as the 'problem' and the drugs as one (of many) destructive outcomes of this. My question is basically; do you agree with the above?