"why are they always directed towards any society which dares to bring in socialist economics?"
They aren't "always", though they often are.
And they can be used to terrorise and exploit.
Beside the point - you have written them off as "terrorist" because it i the poor that suffer - the old Tory argument.
I am talking about them being used to bring down despots - against regimes like those in South Africa, Syria, Israel.... - "terrorism by your blanket definition - economic boycott as a principle, not as an instrument of oppression.
By describing it as "terrorism" you hasvr made it a no-go area.
I have never used the term "personal rights" - they are an ideal anyway
In the meantime, as ordinary, powerless citizens, they are all we have to protect us from big business and corrupt and incompetent politicians - do away with tham and we have nothing (except a classic fascist state).
You refuse to specify which rights should go - our rights to organise as workers has all but gone - would you say that is a right worth fighting for?
How about free medical care - you seem to think we have abused and misused that - should that one to go?
How abut security of tenure - worth fighting for?
Security in employment - the right to work and to be given reasonable notice and compensation - yes or no?
You've made your opposition to medical privacy quite clear - not worth the paper it's written on
How about te sus laws - shold they o or should the police have the right to stop and search us when they feel like it.
Exactly what rights are we entitled to in your book - any?
And one more time - would you be happy in Britain would have turned away fleeing Jews because "there was no room" - exactly how far does your "charity begins at home go?
Jim Carroll