Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:43:09PM +0200, Jes�s Roncero Franco said: > > >You could also consider moving to a country more "social security" friendly > >and get all your medicines for free. Indeed, you could also undergo a "change
>You'll pay twice as much in taxes, but your medicine will be "free". ..some (dare I say, many?) people in "those" countries feel it's a good deal. Some people in less socialistic countries feel their deal is better. The important thing is that one either appreciate one's situation or gravitate to where it works the way one wants. (Or make it work like one wants despite prevailing countertrend where one's at, or join a group working to change the local consensus) I wouldn't write off the co-operative ideals behind socialist thinking just because some implementations have been more or less severely flawed. (Linux is a less-flawed example of a co-operative ideal.) Just as I wouldn't write off the dynamic ideals behind capitalism just because some implementations of it have been severely flawed (robber barons, for instance; war profiteers; sweatshops) -- >Shawn McMahon | Let's set the record straight. There is no argument >EIV Consulting | over the choice between peace and war, but there is >UNIX and Linux | only one guaranteed way you can have peace - and you >http://www.eiv.com | can have it in the next second - surrender. - >Reagan And surrender is what the Coalition of the Willing hopes the Iraqi insurgents will do...(me too, I think they really could prosper if they beat their swords into plowshares...but then, so could my and Reagan's homeland profit from a greater concentration on peaceful methods...) If any of this is controversial or irritating, I retract it (I surrender - may I have my peace now?) (-: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
