Charles wrote:
>I think you are right that the problem wouldn't just go
>away with socialism. There might , in general, in
>socialism be more focus on some safety issues when the
>decision would not depend upon how the safer engineering
>impacted an individual corporation's bottomline. I can
>see a socialism more readily developing its
>transportation system with all the safety features you
>suggest, and not experiencing them economically as
>"astronomical". If there was safety focus comprehensively
>and for a long time, it might be very practical to do it
>better safety wise.
David Shemano wrote:
>Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society?
Note that Charles uses his language with purpose. There do not seem to
be a lot of wasted words. There is the statement "and for a long time"
in that last sentence -- and it means something. Consider it.
>We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired
>economies.
"socialist inspired economies" ... Grin. What the hell is that?
I think George Carlin once did a routine about "truth in advertising."
He gave several examples of what the statements really meant on the
label... One I recall was "chocolatey goodness... As Carlin noted, that
means, 'No fucking chocolate.'"
Ken.
--
Wounded but they keep on climbing
Sleep by the side of the road.
-- Tom Waits
