: First off, I don't like your terminology of statist socialism, it seems so superflous and tainted with ideology.You are free to not like it, and thats fine - remember I used collectivism/socialism in this context to cover any collectivist approach to governing poeple such as nationalism and fascism aswell. - this my be where we differ.
: I personally consider myself a sort of a socialist and naturally suport basic human rights, civil rights, and economic rights. For example ownership of ones own body and self defense.
Even if they contradict eachother, as do the UN articles?
: Of course self defense is useless unless you have acess to teh means of self defense i.e. guns. Of course guns are useless unless they are readily avialble on the market at a reasonable price and are of good quality. Also, the doctrine of self defense is meaningless if people have to chose between buying a gun (self defense) and buying food. So in no way does gun ownership conflict with socialist thought of any kind.
It does with any state which intends to direct the actions of people in a way that does not reflect your "ownership of ones own body and self defense." The fact that some might be unable to afford guns is just a fact, it doesnt affect the principle of self defence which we are discussing.
: Personally, I think gun training and safety should be made standard curriculum in high schools across america. I also liek concealed weapon laws and other such bills. I also like background checks and safety locks, however.
That sounds good, So who is to do the checking - and if it is the government how would you ensure that background checks are objectively based upon past actual crimes upon others (ie not smoking pot etc) and that each applicant is "assumed innocent until proven guilty"? It isnt that way at the moment, because you are assumed guilty until you have to prove (often arduously, dependant upon which state) that you are lawful.
: Also, don't forget the bonus effects of gun ownership: less crime, deterrence to foreign agression, and a last ditch defense against fascism.
Absolutely
: It is not up to any third party to determine exactly waht a peson puts into their body or decides upon as a medical treatment.
Absolutely, that includes the FDA too ofcourse.
: Also, it doesn't hurt to have products and such be labeled clearly so that people can dtermine what there ingesting and it is perfectly acceptable for a liberal democracy to ban toxic and carcinogenic substances from common use if there pervasive use endangers public health and violates personal privacy.
The first is something consumers demand and get, the latter isresolved in the same way regardless laws. Substance is found to be usable, its tested, turns ou to be harmful, people wont buy it. if it violates personal privacy then its covered by those rights.
: A side note on social engineering, most is done by private firms and corporations. What exactly is advertising if not the attempt to change the behavior of large numbers of people?
Attempt, persuade, offer - all things which you can voluntarily take onboard or igniore, challenge and deride. Not so easy with state mediated education with compulsory attendance and state designed curriculums, nor mass media with strings to state. (without strings its just advertising take it or leave it - with no more authority than it can muster itself)
: Finally, what is this stateless socialism stuff? Would it work? Would anyone want to live there?
Its the stuff we see in every country where the state attempts to control what people do, rather that merely police robbery/assualt/fraud/invasions. Ie the whole lot to varying degrees. No its doesnt work, the more you try to do it the more it seems to work (ie the more control you seem to get) but the less people make and contribute to state.
