|
I find it interesting that numbers rather than content are the determining factor in most arguments. If we measure societal good by sheer numbers, then who needs anything more than the romance category of books or perhaps vampire-starring books? We certainly would never need a biography of Lyndon Johnson or a serious discussion of the role of economics in daily lives. By numbers alone, only best sellers would be available and then only if their numbers met a threshold.
I was always under the impression, and based on the thread so far, a clearly wrong impression, that when we spoke of societal good we spoke of something that was outside pure numbers. Based on numbers alone, it would be better for America to let the elderly and the poor starve and die than to provide a minimal subsidy.
The argument increasingly sounds like compassionate conservatism, with compassionate being defined as what is best for the bottom line of the few.
|