Virtues of promiscuity:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/08/18/IN237263.DTL

I don't quite buy it, but it's interesting.

Everard:
>So freedom of religion isn't very important, when people being free to find their own moral paths leads to conflicts in moral view points?
I quite strongly believe in freedom of religion, and separation of state and church -- I don't know why you might think otherwise.
I don't think I had mentioned my opposition to state dictated schools (requiring students to take state approved tests twice a year would be OK) before.
Is your belief in the value of freedom of religion a "practical" or "ideological" one? For me, it's mostly practical, based on so many prior Euro wars with a religious component. Other countries seem to have similar war problems on religious lines, Hindu-Muslim comes to mind. It seems that more freedom would reduce those problems, not less.
However, if "freedom of religion" is creating a bad enough society, I'm willing to consider junking it. Of course, it would have to be clear a) the society was really bad (too many dieing) and b) the problem was due to freedom (highly unlikely to show this).

"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." (Vince never promoted any cheating, but this quote could.) When there's a physical platform held up by many wooden pillars, but a few are rotten so the platform falls, it usually can't be determined that one was to blame.
A reduced sense of right and wrong (it's OK as long as I don't get caught) certainly did contribute to Enron. As did inexperience with new financial instruments, and new trading markets, and slow evolving reporting scandals, etc.