There's a reason I didn't use the word "communism" specifically. To the best of my knowledge, China, among other nations, hasn't suddenly become a bastion of individual rights and private ownership. Just because the State opens a stock market doesn't make them capitalists.

I'm glad you're content with the "mixed economy" solution in the U.S. If I thought it was stable, I would be too. But every damn year it ratchets one or two more notches in the wrong direction.

Where is the point where we say, "the government is big enough" or "controls enough of our lives and economic activities?" Where is the point where an agency or government bureaucracy says "we don't need any more money or power."

Right now, I gather a lot of people in the U.S. would be perfectly happy with the nationalization of health care, particularly if it was presented in some other terminology. I'm noticing that even the Republicans are starting to ease into this kind of thinking. It's so easy to change the defaults.

You make a case for balance. I'm making noise because I see weights constantly being added to only one side of the scale.

I'm not trying to create a libertarian paradise. I'm trying to put on the frigging brakes on this one before it heads for the same place a lot of other societies have ended up. All it takes is enough people who believe all their problems will be solved if the government runs everything. Look at Venezuela.

If somehow the nationalization of the oil companies were made subject to a referendum in the U.S. today, how do you think the vote would turn out?