[MD] Neoconservatism

[Gene M]

> An individual who owns nothing and is prevented by society from ever
> owning anything is a slave.  Do you want to argue for the degree of
> slavery you find acceptable "to make sure everyone in society has all
> they need?" Do you want to argue for giving the government the power to
> decide what you need?
>
> Obviously I find it hard to imagine how you would implement your social
> goals. What am I missing?
>
> Platt
>

Platt, you misunderstand me. I think people should be allowed to own lots of
things. Televisions, automobiles, guns, underwear, all kinds of consumer
goods! An economy is a fine thing. I just don't see why we can't guarantee,
food, water and shelter to the entire population of our ridiculously rich
countries? I'd like very much for this thing to occur without government
intervention, but we really need someone to plan the whole thing, it's a
rather large-scale problem.

I simply question the need for a 30,000 square foor house for any
individual. It'd be nice if they would be prepared to sacrifice some of
their own wealth for the good of others. I admit I'm not particularly
interested in forcing people to give up their things, force is a terrible
solution to any problem. I must say I have no real viable solution at the
moment, just a problem.

I honestly can't imagine any difference between a cat peeing on a tree and
calling it theirs, and a rancher putting up a fence and calling That theirs.
People are generally too attached to their money in my opinion, and we
should as a species move away from such things. Move towards higher goals,
like social and intellectual patterns. This biological urge to territory and
mastery of our environment is getting kind of silly, don't you think?

-Gene