Just because a system doesn't work doesn't mean it's because it's the 'government' versus 'marketforces', it means it doesn't work.
That's making an unwarranted conclusion. Some government programs work well and some do not. Ditto the private sector.
You fix the court system by making it less expensive. It's outrageously expensive today and it doesn't need to be.
If 'market forces' work so well, why don't the citizens of totalitarian regimes bump them off and establish a new regime that's more to their liking? What's stopping them exactly?
Property is not everything. Property is one of many things. That's a very dreary, cold and rather socipathic attitude. Exactly what do you think allows you to gain and keep that property? Your own labors?
In that case, Horatio Alger, you should be able to go to, say, Afghanistan's hinterlands, start from scratch and make your way on your own steam. Can't do it without the societal infrastructure?
Tough. You're on your own.
Is that really how you wish to live?
Human beings are supposed to transcend the squabblings and dog eat dog attitude of other animals. Why would you want to revert back to that?
You say that property is everything. That means that those who have more property are more worthwhile than those who have less. Therefore, you are much less of a human being (as are your children) than, say, Buffet or Gates. Since both of them have much more than you do, you are a nothing, a nobody, a mere smudge of dirt on the bottom of their shoes.
Does that ring true with you?
Why would you want to live in a world where it's money-money-money all the time? In that world, OBL's worth more than you are because he has more property. Ditto Ken Lay...for the time being. Does that make sense to you? |
