Rather he put in place by force a centrally directed system different to both of the systems that had come before.

I say just that above, so you missed the conclusion I wish.Again, the bolsheviks wanted to replace the Obschinas as well as the Kulaks with collective farms. The collective farms were supposed to be “modernization”, not the traditional, feudal, family oriented (“paternalistic”) practice. The ideal for the central planners was more like the large, corporate farms now common in the U.S. but with party apparatchiks in charge rather than corporate proprietors accumulating and holding the land to profit by repaying credit. The New Socialist Order opposed both.”The man now being actually supreme in the house, the last barrier to his absolute supremacy had fallen. This autocracy was confirmed and perpetuated by the overthrow of mother-right, the introduction of father-right, and the gradual transition of the pairing marriage into monogamy. But this tore a breach in the old gentile order; the single family became a power, and its rise was a menace to the gens.”Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the StateBy contrast, I favor reforms in a direction I sometimes call “parentalism”, a more gender neutral form of traditional paternalism. These reforms entitle supportive parents to a portion of their children’s income (as opposed to a Social Security check) for example, this income clearly being a yield of parental investments.The new Russian constitution includes a similar obligation. Article 38 states:

1. Motherhood and childhood, and the family shall be under state protection.2. Care for children and their upbringing shall be the equal right and duty of the parents.3. Employable children who have reached 18 years old shall care for their non-employable parents.

The creeping corporatism of U.S. state capitalism (including systems like Social Security) is not moving in this direction at all. U.S. law is as hostile to the family as Soviet Socialism ever was.

However, this doesn’t lead to the conclusions you wish it to. Stalin did not intend to resurrect the Obshchinas, which were essentially local cooperative. Rather he put in place by force a centrally directed system different to both of the systems that had come before.

The woman in line at the theater was also a riot, but Munger didn’t tell us why he chose to get mad rather that get even. Why didn’t he let her call the cops? Why didn’t he step in front of the woman and tell the next (wo)man behind her, “She’s your problem now.”? Did he really fear the feminine wiles, or was he only caught off guard? Would the woman’s gambit have paid off? Would she have won the cop’s sympathies? Are feminine wiles really so valuable?

Don’t answer that. I need some sleep myself.

How do judges know what “our” expectations were of the behavior of the people we interact with? Do they conduct straw polls? Are they omniscient? Of course not. They end up ruling based on what they think our expectations were, or more likely, should be.

And, while I would rather not have “these changes” imposed on us by those we elect, that’s how democracy works: it’s majority rule. I’d sure as hell rather have the laws imposed by someone I have a chance of electing or persuading, rather than someone I didn’t elect who has life tenure…