Friedman wrote: > Okay, where are you getting these examples from? From my experiences > of living in the United States I am a bit confused by what you mean. > First of all who would ban theatre? No one would ban it in America or any other capitalist country. But according to the rules of economic rationalism, it could be rationalised out of existence. Think about how much `Baywatch' makes. Think about how much some esoteric but brilliant production in someone's basement that a guy has to hock his car to finance makes, and it's easy to see which one is going to survive if society continues on in the way it has. > Second of all who would > ban houses? Same answer, different details. I'm watching it happen in my area right now. Where one house stood on a large block of land, it makes more financial sense to run its elderly owners out of their own home and build an ugly block of flats to fit ten times as many people on the block of land. What results is overcrowded towns and unhappy people and a couple of very rich and selfish businessman at the top of it all. > This sounds more like a totalitarian dictatorship. Big businesses are already attempting to undermine the authority of governments. That's why anti-monopoly laws are (for now) in place. I advise you to read up on this topic before discussing it again - it's really a lot more complex than `X-good, Y-bad'. Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest