Well, define "rich".
No matter how you define it, it's still true that we have to save these people from themselves - in order to save our aggregate! If for no other reason than that the variance inherent in sexual-recombination produces a small but steady proportion of such sociopaths, just like the median frequency of left-handed, LGBT or schizophrenic people, just to name some arbitrarily defined segments of our electorate's resiliency base.
So, has anyone tried altering the "fallacy of scale" story to make it more obviously applicable to Neo-Liberals?
How's this?
No matter how you define it, it's still true that we have to save these people from themselves - in order to save our aggregate! If for no other reason than that the variance inherent in sexual-recombination produces a small but steady proportion of such sociopaths, just like the median frequency of left-handed, LGBT or schizophrenic people, just to name some arbitrarily defined segments of our electorate's resiliency base.
So, has anyone tried altering the "fallacy of scale" story to make it more obviously applicable to Neo-Liberals?
How's this?
"If you hoard more in an aggregate, YOU (seem to) get a local advantage.
So, if EVERYONE hoards more ... we're all better off. ... Right? ???"
:(
Klepto-Liberals of the Big Yard, please self-medicate with something other than our distributed fiat!
No comments:
Post a Comment