I am certainly allowed to doubt the veracity of a claim that apparently is found to be highly skeptical according to the many other wikipedia readers and editors.
They were authoritarian dictators. You seem to be unclear on the concept of how a four point political compass works. There are separate axis for authoritarian and economic views.
The similarity between Stalin and Hitler is that they're both heavily authoritarian and citizens can suffer under authoritarian rule. That's the common denominator, not economic distribution. Socialism doesn't require an authoritarian dictatorship.
Ghandi is closer to where I'd argue that socialism is supposed to land on the compass than Stalin.
Sounds like you have figured out that they had a propensity to tyranny (authoritarianism, here). Thats where Marxists end up.
Incidentally years ago I took a political spectrum test and landed right where Friedman is, Im cool with that.
I'm annoyed by poll questions that leave no options between either "yes" or "no". Most matters aren't that simple.
Such as this, IMO. Do guns empower people? It really depends on the situation. Those who get a gun pointed at their head are usually not empowered, for example.
Someone said above that it empowers people, and depending if these people are up for something good or bad, the result is either good or bad. That's well put, IMO.
This "preventing tyranny" rhetoric is total BS. ISIS has guns, does it prevent tyranny? Al Qaida has guns, does that prevent tyranny? The East-Ukrainian separatists have guns, does that prevent tyranny? No, exactly the opposite, actually. Guns only prevent tyranny when those who are follow liberal/enlightened ideology have guns. When people with a different ideology have guns, guns support tyranny.
In Germany's Weimar Republic (1919-1933), a major problem was that the government was much more freedom loving than a majority of the people. The numerous monarchists had guns, the commies had guns, the Nazis had guns, and they all shot each other on the streets and all shot on the republicans and democrats. And the republican, freedom-loving government was too weak to crack down on the freedom-hating people.
Sounds like you are grasping the concept that inanimate objects must be used by a person, and that they can be used for good or bad.
You know a lot of people who died starved and died from things they may have recovered from if not for being starved
I'm not here to be an apologist for Stalin. I'm not a Stalin fan. The thing is people want to simplify what happened so they can point out communists and say "hey look how evil they are let's kill them" while they completely ignore what capitalism and neoliberalism have done to at least a similar (if not higher) amount of people
Sounds like you are being an apologist. Stalin deliberately starved entire ethnic groups to death. It was entirely intentional.
Anyway you slice it, it comes down to a fundamental truth....
If someone with a gun wishes to abuse you (for whatever reason, or under whatever color of abused authority), you have a much better chance to resist him if you are also armed, than if you are not.
This is the fundamental truth, whether you love guns or hate them.
Some people react to this truth by arming themselves. Some react by trying to disarm everyone. Neither reaction is 100% effective, but I prefer the former to the latter... since the latter tends only to disarm the law-abiding citizen, and not the thug or the oppressor.
You are/where a cop correct? Was it a common occurrence to come across a crime being committed?