No, I am just using examples to demonstrate where good intentions lead. Give me an example of a economically socialistic country you admire.

Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology. Unlike socialism, which is compatible with a market economy, a communist economy consists of local or communal democratic planning.

also from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

as i have already pointed out to you, the current examples are all also Authoritarian states, as i have also pointed out to you, i am a Libertarian, so no-one has tried what i have suggested yet

The problem is such situations would quickly devolve into authortarian states.

Once you give the government too much power... it's going to use that to gain all the power.

Heck the problem with dictatorships aren't that they're dictatorships... it's that it's nearly impossible to find a good dictator.

From your link:

"As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism;"

So it's ok to include the communistic definition with socialism.

Not to come across as a jerk, but nothing you can suggest has not been tried. It just hasn't worked.

The saying absolute power corrupts absolutely fits very well here.

Some of the worst atrocities in humanity started with the best of intentions.

forget it, you clearly dont understand my points, neither does Kasz, ill just leave you wondering, i got my points, im sorry that you didnt

But aren't you claiming to define socialism?  If so, then even if we say that communism is a subset of socialism you cannot define socialism by describing facts that are only true of communism. 

It's like this:
If socialism is "a car"
and communism is "a red car"
and you say "socialism can be described as an automobile that is red" then you're wrong. 

Am I misinterpreting what you've been saying?

I got your point... it just doesn't work that way though.   Elected governments can turn just as eaisly.

By giving massive powers over the poor and by controlling a lot of the countries resources, governments get more and more hard to reign in.

Which is the problem.  Libertarian socialism can only first be achieved by a strong government that decides to step out of the way.

Just like regular ole communism.

The problem is... said governments never want to.

The communists of the USSR for example in practce were supposed to be Libertarian socialists... in the end result.  This never occured because people like their absolute power.

It's not that I don't get your points, it's that centralizing power fails, in everything.

It's why I am a libertarian (American version). Decentralize power as much as posable. Push power down to the states, and then down to the countries, and down to the people.

In history, there has never been a government that was given more power, and became less corrupt. Ever.

To that argument, when has a law ever been passed in the US, that gave Washington less power? And, in the next 4 years, the power given to washington will greatly increase. (Washington will buy it).

Herein lies the problem we are at today.