Yikes John! Be careful--I have no economics background whatsoever and can't do basic math. I'm a humanities guy with an art degree. My point of view may come from things like "treat every man as he deserves and none will 'scape whipping" or however that line went. My feeling that I shouldn't comfort myself about the moral implications of my actions, despite that I can't control the larger context, probably comes from Faulkner, Ibsen, old plays and such stuff.

   I remember the challenge, on the "conservative" thread, but couldn't remember if you'd posted it or pm'd it. I quite agree that you met the challenge. Your account of liberal views is more respectful than I would be, but I wear the liberal label anyway because, well, it fits, in most places. A little tight around the waist, maybe. Anyway I quite agree that it's of interest to try to sort out the underlying drifts of these ideas, and again appreciate your essay very much. I mean no offence, even if I'm strident. I'm afraid I'm getting to be known for that, regrettably.

   Strick I didn't suppose I had a strongest argument in regard to radio. It occurrs to me that radio is different from pay-for-service things, but I'm not sure how that sorts out. But I can say that it's a good area to see how cultural and even mere artistic values are what we wind up wanting to assess economic policy results by. Do we inherently prefer high gloss national shows, everywhere? Or can we abide more plain and even clumsy productions for the sake of variety, inclusiveness, deeper content (in some cases). Does the market have an inherently corrosive effect on our depth-perception, or would we tend to be shallow and conformist anyway? Maybe we would, even probably, but I think the machinery of the market helps us amplify and spread that tendency. How do you place public radio in this? Your example catches me at a bit of a loss, I don't know what to think.