Since Lark's post was mostly empty rhetoric and unsupported assertions, I won't bother to comment on most of it, but one thing sticks in my craw...: The capitalist poisons the water hole in the pursuit of short term gain (who cares if we're all dead tommorrow?) and the politicians poisons the water hole while pursuing bigger better weapons, they both do it the same.
There's nothing profitable, either in the short-term or the long-term, in poisoning a water hole IN a free market. A publicly-owned water-hole, on the other hand, since it belongs to everybody, belongs to nobody and therefore can often be poisoned without recriminations. If the market in water-holes were free, rather than constrained by social government ownership of the water-holes, they would be privately owned and better taken care of.
I understand you meant the whole "water-hole" thing metaphorically, but my critique of it stands whether literal or metaphorical.
