...'the' economy .... 'the' people ... 'the' general welfare ('the' Golden Keys to emperor wannabees...) Once again, an illustration of how deeply 'the' singular has been ingrained; unable to even setup 'the' bowling pins in terms of pluralities. Your example still begs the question; what is it about socialism that demands forced association on a national scale? In a free market society, if 95% of the nation wants to construct co-ops and non-profits and community run businesses, more power to them. What is stopping any of that? The ethical question is, on what ethical basis to the 95% force the assocaition of the 5% who politely say "No, thank you" to their peers, once living in freedom? Where is the ethical sanction to beat the 5% over the head and force their participation in kumbaya dream world? ie, why must socialism be 'national socialism?' Is there some special need? Some want? Some got to have it element that makes it a necessity? Because as close as I can tell, that element is the lives of the unwilling. It doesn't look any better when we call that 'slavery' .,. nor any worse. The 95%/5% truly makes no sense, especially given the labor theories of where value comes from. Let's say, politically, the 95% convince government to simply print dollar bills and hand it out to the 95%. (Already done that here.) Then, all that is left to make this work is, the labor theory of value to erupt. The people who 'really' drive our economies just get busy and drive their economies. Everyone is happy. So what are the 95% possibly waiting for? Who is it they are waiting for? It can't be the 5% -- they add no value, we are told. So then, what? Why would the forced association of the 5% be necessary to make this great idea fly? The 95% can get busy creating all value in their 'the' economy and circulate value; they don't need the 5%. So what is holding them back? They should get busy and stop waiting for whatever it is they are waiting for. I will cheer them on(and have for 30+ years, to a virtually empty arena. I've long stopped waiting for the crowds to show up; they are still waiting for something. No idea what that is. ) We should try this great idea in health care(we are.) Let's put a gun to a brain surgeon's head, tell him what we unilaterally decide is sufficient for him to perform our much needed brain operations(we present our Holy needs as out ethical foundation), and then see how this works out. We can start early in grade school, and convince those with aptitude that it is their duty to hit the books and serve the needs of those louts in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs. Sounds like a plan; it's the one we are in the middle of. Should work out fine. Selling hollow political promises to the spitball louts is painless, they will sell their vote for next to nothing(Hope and Change and poses by posers...) If and when they ever manage to make it to L'es Mis to weep about social justice, why, they won't even notice that the tickets sell for $125 a pop. If they do, well, they can laugh about if at Gallagher's over a $100 steak. (Actually, no more; that restaurant that once weathered the Great Depression was unable to make it through the Obama Recovery...) There is no ethical obligation to obey laws that themselves have no ethical foundation. Those that can, will and do. That includes, dodge clumsy forks by the tribe that have no other ethical foundation other than the brute force of numbers. Which has always resulted in resort to brute force, period, as the tribe's final act of impotent rage. But that is violence of agression, not violence of defense. They are not the same. Polite tribal organization is based on free association; polite incantations justifying forced association are hardly polite in the least. regards, Fred (Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/06, 8:10am)
| 
