of wealth. The other question I have, which relates to my first, is the focus on "liquid wealth," presumably cash, stocks, bonds, I suppose. What of housing. You criticize Thatcherism, but it seems to me that some of what the lady did -- e.g. her selling off of council flats/homes to the residents -- would've have effected the nonliquid wealth of that lower half of the population, but would be lost in Mr. Blond's measure. And of course this aspect of Thatcherism seems something that a Distributist could certainly support. My last point re Thatcherism regards the defining question for conservatives of what exactly is to be conserved. I wonder if things had gotten to the point by 1979 in Britain when she became PM that there wasn't much left to conserve. That is, ought the postwar consensus that one could argue her predecessors Heath, on the one side, and Wilson/Callaghan, on the other, to have been conserved? (By the way, I'm following with interest, and quite enjoying, the back and forth between all y'all fropo-cons and your friends the pomo-cons. And as an aside, but without wanting to be seen as spamming this site, fropos and pomos alike may be interested in my new book which deals in part with Distributism -- http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P01292 ) Well, Mark, that sentence was rather difficult for me to figure out, so your help is appreciated. You're right "it's all about freedom," so I don't have a problem with applying the law across the