====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
In a dialectical manner, here is the counter-perspective: If you take some people's money so other people are not at risk of starvation, that may be socialist. If you take some of some people's freedoms in order to guard all others from an AIDS epidemic, that may also be socialist, or not? It's not so black and white, David. AIDS patients were in the sanatorium only so long until their doctors were certain they understood the ethical responsability that a person who carries AIDS has. If you are unsure about whether a person may do significant harm to others if kept free, you imprison that person. There is nothing new about this system, and it especially applies to the possibility to inflict epidemic damage instead of individual damage. Secondly, the more drastic measures were set in an early phase of AIDS and STD awareness, when acceptance of condoms was not high and they did not want to leave it to their people to create or evade an epidemic. And, remember, they do this while watching many South African countries having huge epidemics. Certainly drastic measures, but with a reasoning behind it, and in a situation of immediacy and anxiety. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
