This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

You can't cherry pick which "socialist" states you want to compare. None of those "communist" totalitarian states achieved true communism. They used the force of government to make changes that would bring it about, but in the end they implemented socialism. A dictatorship should be the one that implements "socialism" most efficiently. We could look at France then. Riots? Religious freedom? Debt? Unfunded pensions? Unemployment? etc. etc. etc.

I don't cherry pick. I just didn't mean dictatorships. If you however want to compare the US situation with a heavily boycotted dictatorships situation that is fine with me but I usually lay the bar a bit higher when I want to find out what is right or wrong in my country.

Well, France then.

But, your argument is that we should do more of the same?

No it isn't. My argument is that maybe in the not too distant future a society with huge differences in wealth are not sustainable anymore.
Of course people spending money they don't have are too blame.....but as I say so often.....most people aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of their actions.....and for sure not when everybody (your government, your banks, all the big companies around you) tell it is good to spend as much as you can (because they get better from it themselves).

Here are the two classes; Those that take care of themselves, and those that don't take care of themselves (which includes cannot, and will not). Of the latter, I'm only concerned with those that cannot take care of themselves. Our "occupy Wallstreet" protesters represent those that will not take care of themselves.

Where do you stop? Why not take half of everyone? Just think of all the great stuff the government could do with all that money. Hey, let's just take it all. Do you believe at all in freedom? How can a government represent "justice" by unjust means?

You should try and look a bit out of the box here. I didn't propose anything, I just asked a difficult ethical question. We know that we cannot keep our current wealth....we have to share more and more with poorer countries....things will change.
500 years ago it was very normal that a king was rich and peasants were poor. In India they still (practically) have a cast system etc. etc. it is not a crazy thought to think that our society will change drastically as well. And maybe in another world, people don't find it fair that investment bankers get huge bonuses by shifting money from here to there.

There is little difference between the king, and the corporate tycoon with a parcel of politicians in his pocket. The crucial element that make them both unjust is the use of government. How about instead of sharing our wealth (giving them fish), we share our expertise (teach them how to fish)?

But, let's not beat around the bush. Let's look at real world examples. What did Bill Gates (lost only $6 billion this year), or Warren Buffet (lost $39 billion), or the Koch brothers (plus $43 billion speculating on oil futures) do that justifies taking half their wealth? Actually, the rich are a minority with an angry majority mob literally marching to their homes demanding their heads (and wealth). Our misplaced anger should be redirected toward our government representatives who should be helping to level the field so we all can prosper.