This is a good one:
[T]he New York Times Style section exists solely in order to fill libertariansGuess what? Feudalism enables the privileged to lead shallow, grasping lives just as well. I really wonder how many of those profiled have actually used the "free" market to produce something worth while that people have needed & purchased. Frankly, I'm not going to read this because it seems very, very silly to me.
with existential disgust about the shallow, grasping lives that the free market
enables its more successful denizens to lead.
Posts
3 comments:
Hasn't pretty much every system of government favored the privileged? The style section of every major metro exists solely to sell shit, so I guess that's where the free market thing comes in, but not everybody who can afford to buy some finer things is shallow and grasping. I think Megan is projecting here.
Some would argue that protecting the privilege of the upper classes has historically been the entire point of government, even though it's never actually stated that way.
I don't have quite that radical a political lean, myself, but it seems like a defensible argument at least.
Spence, that's what "law & order" are all about.
Post a Comment