on money (in the abstract)

[Michael Bailey]

> check if nothing else does; we are more connected, more unified, this
> is in large measure owed to trade and business and exchange of ideas.
> But business, good as it is at unifying peoples, is no match for the
> political weapons political folks, the kind you seem so stuck on, can
> employ, such as war and terror. SO, despite the cost of war and
> terror, the politicals are determined to keep it an option always on
> the table.

because, a default meme that people seem to lack is that you get your
money's worth when you pay your taxes
- once it was more common (I was brought up both at home and school
with that credo)
- but there is a lot of hoo-hah being breathed about the public sector
not being necessary

I say it is:
- economies of scale on delivery of some stuff, like utilities, makes
government involvement of great benefit
- a police force at least theoretically neutral and serving the common
good is better for all than a bunch of private armies
- I'd say that principle also is a good fit for health care


anyway, for these things - a commonwealth - to exist, people have to
be in the habit of paying taxes
so there has to be enough military hardware and people to roll out a
good May Day parade
enough force to enforce stuff...

and then once you have a force like that, it's incredibly tempting (I
guess) for the type of people who choose to get involved in that sort
of career, to use it...

but what do I know? as alice sez, or maybe dictates to her private
secretary as she rides along in her gold-plated Hummer, this sort of
Realpolitik is outside our remit.  Speculating on the psychology of
people I don't know, however, is right up my alley -- my favorite part
of literary analysis is speculating on the emotions of fictional
people...