There is no moral equivalence. Public consensus means nothing. Laws still restrain people no matter how many people agree. The purpose of laws, in regards to hu

There is no moral equivalence. Public consensus means nothing. Laws still restrain people no matter how many people agree. The purpose of laws, in regards to humans? Limit the violence, not create it. Here's an idea. How about not betraying the people paying for your bailouts. You could at least hire more people. Isn't Karl Marx the one European who has enslaved more people than anyone? Wealth doesn't accumulate. What once was novel, like electricity, becomes ubiquitous. And you can't "rich" yourself out of society. If you are moral and behave, you accumulate wealth, and often give it away before your lazy spoiled children ruin you. And the dialectical materialism, didn't Marx misread Hegel? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Hegel never said that. What Hegel said is if you choose an "-ism", the very real world proves it wrong, and that's how you get ideals. The communist plague the world. OK. We'll just advance medicine. The communist bribe and loan our leaders? OK. We'll just take the money from them, and throw them in the ocean when the loan comes due. Anything else?