Socialism is defined as "government ownership of the means of production." The fallacy in that is that it takes what is produced as well as how it is produced as a given. If it is a given, it "was inevitable."Such an analysis cannot survive any understanding of the real world, where nothing is quite as inevitable in prospect as present reality always seems in hindsight.
If socialism had been allowed to freeze "the means of production" - and what was produced - back in Karl Marx's day, we would all be wielding the hammers and sickles which seemed so properly emblematic of work in the nineteenth century rather than mostly working in air conditioned offices to which we commute in air conditioned automobiles. And we would be dying by age 55.
Huh!
I am afraid your point was so subtle, I almost missed it.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying because we have a free market, someone would have stepped in at some point to fill this need (for a national conservative voice) and as it happens, it was Rush, but any talented person would have been just as good.
If that was indeed your point, perhaps, but I doubt it. Rush is unique, his talent is unique.