Well, if there were no trees, it is a good bet there would not be many forest fires.

But why don't you guys define your terms. Obviously, the balance between individual determination and group determination is a sliding scale or spectrum. There seems to be a point of comfort in this country, a bit to the left of our present balance.

SHould the Space Program, in all its complexity and cost, be privatized? Where's the profit? How about the NEA with its grants for art? DARPA?   The Federal Parks? The highway system between states?

I don't think any of those would do well, in the hands of profit-driven private parties.

Social security seems to be well-received as a safety net for minimal support, as do Medicare and Medicaid.

Yet these are examples of a degree of socialism that in general are not qwell received by the strongly right-of-center crowd.

How about Pell grants? District and state funding of education? Aren't these "socialistic"?

Do they benefit society more than they detract?


A