Went to a very upscale dinner party with my girlfriend and her parents. It was for a super exclusive "inviation only" nationwide group of lawyers, the best of the best (although really what it appeared to be was a group that was designed to make sure they refer the best and biggest clients only to each other). In any event, at one point we were talking about water law (a hot topic in Colorado with scarcity of water and California's roughshod abuse of water compacts to drain mountain lakes to make sure Californians can have bluegrass lawns in the desert without having to pay to desalinize water off their coastline).
One fella, a nationally reknouned attorney, launched full on into a diatribe about how there really shouldn't be any recognition of "property rights" and how everything should be run by a collective. It was amazing. His views were certainly heartfelt, but he had no clue. He said that the government ought to enlist the best and brightest scientists to "come up with" the best distribution of water so that each state and area contribues all the water it is able, and each consumer of water takes whatever he or she needs. (Sound familiar? Try this "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."). My question: How do you plan to "make" the scientists come up with that solution. What if they don't want to come up with the data or solutions you want. He said: "There are certainly ways to encourage their participation."
It was certainly an eye opening situation. Oh, and his politics: He said he's supporitng "Kerry, because its a step toward the radical transformation away from capitalism and property rights we need to have to ensure the public good."
Astounding, I tell you. Asounding.