CompuServe Messages

Jim, actually the equation is Liberal == Marxist, Socialist is a subset of Communist. Case in point, what is the central premise of Marxist (or as they prefer to call it now, Power Conflict) Theory? It is that the central dynamics of society can be reduced to a collection of political-economic struggles between various classes within the society. Now, go back and look at the rhetoric of any Democratic convention, most Democratic Congress-critters, and the current occupants of the White House. Does class conflict describe their central tenets? Does it characterize their prescriptions for societal change? In a word, yes. I spent two years studying under an avowed Marxist/Conflict-Theory sociologist (Dr. David Baker, author of "Race, Racism and Capital Punishment" <g>), so I can recognize that mode in about five sentences, usually less. I can write in that dynamic mode as well. I hope I do, since my International Development instructor is also of the same mode <sigh>. Now to your questions. Contractors, in a theoretically free market (as if one exists today) should place reactor safety above profits for the very same reason that any firm that constructs something places safety above the current profit. If your reactor/dam/building fails, in a free market, you will not be likely to see another contract in the future. A rational contractor facing such a loss of future profits will decline some current profit in order to ensure a future stream of contracts. That such does not happen today indicates one of two things, perhaps both. Either contractors need not forgo current profits in order to ensure a future stream of profits, i.e. the fix is in for future contracts, or that there is an insufficient flow of information to the contracting party on past performance by the contracted firm. Hmmm, one more possibility, there are so few firms that competition is effectively eliminated from the market, which I think highly likely looking at the way contracts are awarded around here (So. Cal.) Re: Military. Ask yourself, "what is the mission of the military?" Quite simply it is to apply sufficient force to bear upon an enemy so as to ensure their capitulation to the political goals of a given country. Even though a country may have been decimated, with respect to the civilian population/industry, the mission of the military continues. Until the enemy capitulates, you continue the conflict as long as necessary, or until defeat. Therefore a military will prepare to engage in a protracted conflict to please the political masters, if seperate from the military, since their goals are preeminent.