Re: Lolita
Friedman (bananafish_9@yahoo.com)
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)
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? The government? It doesn't really
make any sense. Everyone wants entertainment. Second of all who would
ban houses? This sounds more like a totalitarian dictatorship. The
more money people make the bigger they want their houses to be. If one
wants to be successful then they will be. Normal people do not end up
homeless. They are mostly mentally ill people who have been kicked out
of institutions because they can not afford to keep them any more.
Either that or drug addicts who have spent everything on their
addiction and can not work because of it. I don't know maybe you were
talking about some other form of capitalism because I did not really
understand what you meant. Bye!
-Liz Friedman
---Camille Scaysbrook <verona_beach@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> Despite the fact that this is an argument I do not wish to enter
into -
> you're saying that we should ban theatre because it doesn't make any
money?
> Fire half the people at any given factory and make the remainder
work twice
> as hard? Ban houses and build only flats? People who are homeless
deserve
> to be that way because they have no buying power? Because that's
what the
> Bad Ol'
> Days of Capitalism *really* mean.
>
> Camille
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com