One socialist I can at least agree to disagree with.

Robert Owen,

At least he went off and formed his own communities. That way, only they payed the price as it went down the toilet. That's what happens. For that's just the way socialism is because of philosophic naturalism. But at least everyone else did not have to pay for it in Owen's case.

So with such a man, you can agree to disagree. There are others that you cannot agree on any level with. I do like, "Let the dead bury their dead." To hell with some people.....just live and let die. But the problem with all the free caring for health that the Democrats want and the like is that someone has to pay. And if socialists do not form their own communities as Robert Owen did, that someone is going to be the working man and the "rich." I.e. mothers and fathers who actually generate a lot of wealth to pay for it all. So the Democrats begin skimming off of what the "rich" are trying to accomplish for their families.

Some people actually are just greedy, especially those who put their lifestyle before their kids. That's any easy sign to read. But they still generate wealth too.

If it seems like, "Well, they will all just generate more, more! So free care for your health, for all! For you're too fat and stupid by now to care for your health."

No, actually the back of all working men can be broken and the rich men can hide away in the woodwork when that sort of thing happens. I know, it seems like we are just too wealthy now. It always does. For now, things have changed, now we can get away with decadence and rewarding failure. So we can have more Marxism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his disability.

Given this Marxism, does the rapid inflation of medical dis-ability surprise you? That there are less able, less able? Diagnosing for dollars.....the back of the able can be broken, you know.

But it is said that the problem with Marxism was only that people tried to skip from Feudalism(China, Russia) straight to Communism. Marx said that the historical pattern would be Feudalism, Capitalism, then Communism. So if they had just allowed capitalism to generate the wealth, the capital, then they could have their cake and eat it too! For they'd have cake making machines to do all the work.

No, for to have a cake, you always have to make the cake. That's just the way it is, technology only saves some time. You still cannot get something, for nothing. You have to have bakers, even if they're sitting at a computer terminal. Machines are inanimate and will never totally run themselves. This is the hidden problem with socialism/Marxism, the assumption that matter in motion can be something more than inanimate. It's Nature worship.

It is a basic matter of philosophy that you cannot get something for nothing. Evolutionists, they're still trying reeeally hard to get something, for nothing. Nature worship, mommy Nature actually selects things, for they are her lil' natural selections....naturally, you know? What place then, for Aristotle's unmoved Mover? Maybe he is moving around in Stephen Hawking's imaginary time. Yeah, the thing about imaginary time is that it is.....imaginary.

The battle among physicists is about over, really. I will write more about how biologists/evolutionists still try to get something for nothing though, sometime.