So... we need to restrict people’s freedom of movement... to preserve their freedom of... movement?

You get that service workers are the main thing making the city more attractive, right? The forced removal of an entire social class ain’t exactly gonna create a more stable real estate market.

Transplant lists aren’t managed by private insurance companies, which is a pretty easy way of figuring out that’s not what I was referring to.

The drafting committee was assembled at the beginning of the 39th Congress

... is that a joke? They have no demand-side leverage. Because insurance is managed by private companies. Do you actually not understand that there’s a difference?

There’s still a market for private insurance. Also, no company offers ONLY health plans. Socialized medicine is more efficient than the employer provided care system, so yes, some people doing unnecessary and redundant work will lose their jobs. Executive salaries will fall. People also lost jobs to electricity. Coal…

Yeah, economies of scale are a crisis actor!

It’s literally something farmers do

Changing your own oil and peeling shrimp are orders of magnitude less difficult than growing pot, not to mention almost impossible to fuck up

Can confirm. I live in Connecticut and have thrown seeds (and stems) off of many a porch. Only place they grew? Mass., into full-fledged, bud-havin’ smokeable marihuana, much better than the shwag it was descended from. Clearly the stuff of witchcraft.

Well you need more vegetables in your diet then

This is the perfect analogy

Yes, if you pretend nothing means anything, then everything means nothing. You’re very clever for figuring that out. But over here in real life where language is somehow in use regardless, the person who called for a major social reordering and got the endorsement of literally Karl Marx was a radical, and the ones…

Also, he invented emissions testing! And cut tobacco use by like 40%! For real! Stopped clocks and all that.

Yes, the Lincoln-Douglass debates were famously about how much they completely agreed with each other on abolition and were actually worried about tariffs or industrialization or whatever. So worried they were afraid to even talk about it.

No, there was no question of “preserving the union” until secession, which was explicitly a conservative move against threats to the institution of slavery. Reacting to someone’s reaction to you doesn’t make you also a reactionary, on the contrary, it means you’re staying the course.

Or, you know, if Hillary’s old head of P.R. said something hilariously ironic very publicly in response to the news this editorial is commenting on. Could be that.

You realise this argument is also a defense of Hitler, right?

That’s not accurate and you know it. The change being resisted was the end of slavery.

We very much all already live in “Conservative-Topia.”