Menchise

quote: Who are YOU to make THIS judgement? My career is KEY on who I AM, because it is what I WANT to do. People are individuals. As such, they have a RIGHT to place as much emphasis on their careers as they want. To say that it is "too much" is quite disturbing. It seems to indicate that you believe that YOU know something most everyone else does not. Further, the fact that people DO place emphasis on their careers should show you reason why socialism doesn't work - people are INDIVIDUALS. Who are YOU to tell them what is right and what is wrong? Individuality does not come from your job because a job is just a task that the economy requires someone to complete. Individuality comes from the freedom to express yourself. That's why humanity invented the arts. This debate we are having right now is an exercise in individuality: the art of Philosophy. Every economic system has a pseudo-mechanical structure, including Capitalism, even though its parts are constantly rearranging themselves. Therefore, every economy has a machine mentality. Here is a basic blueprint of the Capitalist machine: It consists of injectors and leakages interconnected by sectors. 1. Private Sector Injector #1, Production, connects through the goods and services wire to Leakage #1, Consumption, which connects back through the money wire. 2. Financial Sector Injector #2, Investment, connects to Leakage #2, Savings. 3. Public Sector Injector #3, Government Expenditure, connects to Leakage #3, Taxation. 4. External Sector Injector #4, Exportation, connects to Leakage #4, Importation. The important thing to consider is how the machinery of the economy affects individuals. Capitalism damages individuality because it teaches all people that their thoughts, feelings, and personal identity are only worth the money they make. This mentality turns human beings into cheap robots under the watchful eye of Big Dollar. The only significant freedom of expression in Capitalism is the ability to choose which type of robot you want to be. Socialism nurtures individuality because the freedom of all people to express themselves is not limited by economic factors. The thoughts and feelings of all human beings are equally important, no matter what job they have. That is freedom. quote: Yeah, uhm, this isn't factual in the least. 1: The employees have bargaining power - the company NEEDS them. 2: If the company serves only their interests and not that of their employees, they will not get needed labor. Further, existing employees will develop a tendency to leave. 1: The employee needs the company much more than the company needs the employee. Companies take advantage of that. 2: Labour will have no choice because Enterprise Bargaining encourages ALL companies to behave that way. It's like sitting down to a game of poker with $100 when the guy on the other side of the table has $500. That guy will win every hand because he can out-raise you every time. [ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: And what exactly is changing due to this? In Enterprise Bargaining, the employee and the employer "negotiate" the terms of a binding employment contract. Sounds nice on the surface (diplomacy replacing strikes), but it's not what it seems, because the employers have ALL of the bargaining power. In reality, there is very little real negotiation in Enterprise Bargaining, because the employer can afford to completely ignore the demands of the other side, the job applicant cannot. The result is that the employment contracts are always biased toward the interests of the employer. In conclusion, Enterprise Bargaining is a method of bullying used by corporations to take away the benefits that the unions spent years fighting for. quote: Therein lies another problem. Capitalism is what anyone makes of it. Socialism doesn't even know HOW to work - no two people have the same idea of what it really would be. Doesn't mean that the debate can't be resolved. After all, there are different interpretations of Capitalism too, including Laissez Faire and Keynesian economics. quote: The primary fault - the government would be the deciding factor in what is necessary. Suddenly, a shortage of workers in one field is created. What happens then? People would have to be FORCED into working in such fields. Called slavery. Mankind is robust. One cannot predict any man's desires. As such, to assume that it would all "balance out" would be a fatal flaw. There is a difference between slavery and cooperative production. If an individual wants an item, then that person should assist in the item's production. Besides, a man's desires would be more satisfied if he helped in the development of what he wanted. Don't you value something more when you have made it yourself? quote: In capitalism, however, the rewards are different, therefore, it CAN balance itself out. For instance, why would ANYONE want to labor in a car factory and receive the same compensation as, say, a lifeguard? So then, how does one get those dirtier jobs filled in a socialist system? It FORCES people. A lot of people place too much emphasis on their careers. A job is a role you play in serving the people, it is not part of your identity. Having different rewards for different jobs is a bad thing because it implies that some jobs are better than others, which makes the people who have lower paid jobs feel inferior. EVERY job is equally important, from the president to the street sweeper. The day you start making distinctions about the value of each job is the day that you start alienating people.

quote: Anyone know why win2k works so well? Because it's NOT a MS product, it just bear their name. Huh? I thought that Win2k was just Windows NT5 with a different name.

Shingen, how many times do I have to tell you that Stalin was not a real Socialist? Anyway, here is my opinion on the missile defense contraption. Why do Americans assume that every country with nuclear warheads is pointing them at the USA? Israel is also a nuclear weapons power, and a neighbouring enemy of Iraq, so if Saddam Hussein does have nuclear weapons, it is more likely that he is pointing them at Israel, not the USA.

quote: Now then, let's take a look at that, Vietnam was NEVER an actual declared war, it was a police action, though it is called the Vietnam war. This was the mistake, we should have declared it a war and let the military handle it, we then would have won. America still wouldn't have won, because the US military didn't have much experience in guerrilla warfare. The VietCong knew the jungle like the back of their hands, they were battle-hardened after fighting for independence, their guerrilla tactics were refined to a sharp point, and America's air superiority had no significant effect since they could not even see where the VietCong was hiding. quote: Fact is Truman should have allowed McArthur to go into China, but being the politician he was, he just couldn't do it. McArthur had the future of US Security in mind when he wanted to do that, just as Patton did when he wanted to march into the USSR after WWII, which he should have been allowed to do as well. The military knew who they were going to have to fight, and wanted to do it before the enemy got too strong to beat. MacArthur was dismissed after the results of his approach toward Chinese borders. The Chinese sent a warning not to go further, it was ignored, and the Chinese eventually sent over half a million troops against MacArthur, pushing him past the 38th Parallel and south of Seoul. If he did succeed in invading China, the war would have been a big disaster for America because the Russians would have intervened in the conflict, and together with China, and with the future of Soviet security in mind, would have pushed America off the Korean Peninsula entirely. quote: Vietnam was actually a war between the superpowers, the USSR and the US, whether you know it or not, and many of the smaller police actions and skirmishes were the same thing. a Pseudowar between the superpowers, we couldn't take each other on directly, but with our surrogates we could take each other on indirectly. I knew that. It was called a 'Balance of Terror'. But Vietnam was different from other conflicts like Korea because it was caused by a superpower instead of one of the surrogates, neither of which wanted to fight in the first place. All they wanted was unity as a people. When the USA made that impossible, the VietCong, who had thrown the French out in 1954, were determined to do the same to the Americans. quote: Thank God for Reagan!! He put an end to that follishness!!! I think Gorbachev had a lot to do with it as well. After all, he was the one who received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to end the Cold War.

Since we're quoting more than just Leno now, here is a BC3K joke I wrote in the forum two years ago, or at least an approximation (I don't remember the exact wording). "There has been some talk recently about how the spaceship in Battlecruiser 3000AD looks very similar to the Battlestar Galactica from the TV series of the same name. What some people don't realize is that there are other similarities between BC3K and Galactica. For example: Battlestar Galactica: Searching for Earth. BC3K: Searching for bugs. Battlestar Galactica: A race of robots. BC3K: A cast of voice actors. Battlestar Galactica: Axed after one season. BC3K: Re-released after one season of axes. Battlestar Galactica: Cylons. BC3K: Eleven stupid names." For the commanders who prefer not to joke about BC3K, here is something for you too. "The release date for Freelancer has been pushed back AGAIN. It is now scheduled for January 2002. If this keeps up, Chris Roberts will be making his next game from a nursing home." "You know, the way his games are being delayed, maybe Chris Roberts could be a good film director after all. He's becoming more and more like Stanley Kubrick every day."

quote: It is against Federal law to use the regular military on US territory against it's own citizens. The ones that would be fighting, would be the National Guard, put up by the states. These men and women would not fight against the citizens fighting against a corrupt government that was stepping on the constitution. They take an oath to uphold the constitution and will be punished for following illegal orders, I know, I took that oath. If the American People became enraged and decided to overthrow our government on constitutional grounds, the military and national guard would not fight, on the contrary they would join us. Any civilian government that tried, after trampling the constitution, would find itself a VERY hurting unit. Are you saying that you can't trust the government, but you can trust the military? Read about the dismissal of Douglas MacArthur. He could have started a war with China if Truman didn't throw him out. Also read about the Vietnam War, where the American military was very willing to help the American government trample the rights of the South Vietnamese. North and South Vietnam never wanted to fight each other. They had just won independence after a bloody fight with the French Empire. The Vietnamese people wanted to unite into one nation, and elections were planned that would decide who the leader of the unified Vietnam would be. The American government was afraid that Ho Chi Min (a Communist) would win the election, because he was the hero of Vietnam's fight for independence, so they stopped the elections by installing their own puppet state in South Vietnam that proceeded to work against unification. This effectively took away the self-determination that the Vietnamese people had just won in their fight for independence, not to mention the people's chance to vote for their own leader. Despite the injustice, the military supported the government. When it was becoming clear to the government that they were going to lose the war but continued drafting American citizens anyway, the military didn't stop it. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese were killed in a war that should never have occurred in the first place. There are only so many things that a Constitution can protect you from. Don't count on the military being on your side.

quote: The fact is that after you disarm the population, the only one with weapons is the government. If that does not frighten you, you don't know much about history, or simply don't care. If you think that the right to own automatic weapons is going to stop a government from oppressing its people, you know even less about history and the power of the military. In the American war for independence, both the American people and the British troops had muskets, but the fact is that if the Americans did not have the support of the French Navy, the war would have been lost. In the French Revolution, the people managed to overthrow the corrupt monarchy with guns because the monarchy under Louis XVI was disorganized and weak. The victory boosted their morale to the point that they could defeat the Austrian troops that were sent in to stop them. If the American government decided to oppress the people, it could do it, whether you have machine guns or not, because they have the SWAT Teams (equipped with tear gas grenades and sniper rifles that can hit targets 500 yards away), the Army (equipped with tanks), the Navy (equipped with missiles), the Air Force (equipped with more missiles and bombs), and the Marine Corps (masters of stealth who can break your neck faster than you can say 'ouch'). If all else fails, they can release Mustard gas bombs from the air to exterminate entire pockets of resistance. If that fails, covert agents could release mosquitos carrying malaria, anthrax, and who knows what else. If that also fails, and the government starts losing the conflict, they'll deploy a few low yield nuclear warheads to finish it. Eventually, the people would lose confidence, if not their lives, and become slaves anyway. I don't know about you, but I prefer to trust the government not to oppress me (to a certain point) instead of starting a futile arms race with them. If you don't trust governments, leave the country and join an Anarchist community, you'll be a lot happier there. quote: Banning guns is ridiculous, as all you are doing is disarming the LAW-ABIDING citizens of the land. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that a CRIMINAL - someone who'd use a gun for violent activities - is going to actually CARE about gun laws? OF COURSE not. So what is the result? That criminal knows that all those homes of law-abiding citizens are safe to enter because resistance is essentially outlawed. That's right - banning guns is the government's way of removing your right to fight back. The criminals would still have to worry about guard dogs, security alarms and curious neighbors who know how to dial 911 (000 in Australia). quote: Further, if anyone thinks that banning guns would make it HARDER for criminals to attain them, be advised that this is not true. Cocaine is illegal, but still can be aquired quite readily. If automatic weapons are banned, criminals who are caught in possession of one can be arrested immediately. If they are not banned, the police have to wait for the criminal to use it (as a threat of force or the use of force) before they can arrest the criminal. Which would you prefer?

quote: And your point is? I know of an idiot with a drivers license that mowed down 32 people on a New York Sidewalk, that means that we should ban automobiles as well? Automatic weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, automobiles are not. Imagine how many people could have died on that sidewalk of that idiot (or some other idiot) was using a machine gun instead of a car. quote: it was a feel good liberal tactic to ban guns in order to push their socialist political agenda. No majority in ANY country would willingly become socialists, they would revolt, the only way to remove the threat of revolt is to create such a hubbaloo about guns to make a majority want to ban them, again, based on emotion, not facts. Then, you can install your socialist system on the populace without the need to worry of revolt because you have suckered the populace into disarming themselves. Jaguar, any Australian who read your statement about the Australian Liberal Party having a Socialist agenda would roll on the floor laughing their heads off. Our Liberal Party is the most conservative of the lot, and they were the ones who introduced the gun laws. In fact, former Liberal Party Prime Minister Robert Menzies tried to ban the Socialist parties in Australia. The High Court wouldn't allowed it because it would violate the Constitution. In that particular case, Australia was more of a Republic than the USA, because the American government was deporting suspected Communists during the MacCarthy Era (1950-1953). Secondly, thirty people shot to death is not a hubbaloo. It is death. Horrible death. Thirdly, the populace is not disarmed because handguns are still allowed. quote: Each and every country that you have stated above started out as Communist or socialist per your definition, but those who crave power, pervert it for their own ends. Germany was a Capitalist Republic before Hitler perverted it for his own ends. Every system is corruptable. quote: Capitalism feeds off of human nature, that is what makes it so successful. It is based on the law of nature, survival of the fittest!! If your not fit and don't make the grade, you will not survive!! Read my last post on issues of Capitalism and Socialism in the "Summit of the Americas" thread.

quote: What dream world are you in? This will never happen, Serve humanity because it is such a wonderful thing to do? oh my GOD!!! Give me a break. Human nature, "what's in it for me" as soon as you remove this from the equation, everything else falls flat on its face. The Biological Reductionist argument about human nature is probably THE most common argument against Socialism. The Socialist counter-argument is that humans are not born as selfish beings, they are made that way by the system that they grow up in. Nature vs Nurture. I agree with the latter, but whichever argument you believe doesn't matter in my opinion, because nature always changes and evolves when the environment is just right. I believe that all of humanity MUST evolve out of its competitive drive in order to survive the challenges of the future. Otherwise, we will end up destroying ourselves after all of our resources are gone (and they are disappearing fast). As long as Capitalism is around, this evolution is never going to happen. So far, humanity's attempts at Socialism (which is as good an environment as any for this type of evolution) have not been successful, but I refuse to believe that it's impossible. I look forward to a time when I can serve humanity without worrying whether it's financially profitable or not. You call it a dream. I call it the 'make or break' of civilization. This will be my last post on the issue, because: a) I've said all that I think needs to be said, and I'm running out of Internet hours.

quote: Menchise, you have already admitted that you are a socialist, the fact is that if a robber robs you, he must need what you have and therefore, according to you, can go ahead and borrow it for a while. Not true, because the robber is taking stuff that I may need. Besides, in a Socialist system, everyone receives EVERYTHING that they need in return for their work. quote: I beleive in an individuals right to defend himself, your country and you, do not. A fully automatic weapon is designed for killing people, pure and simple, what's wrong with me owning one? Not like I'm gonna walk down the middle of downtown with it. Automatic weapons are banned in Australia because someone DID walk into town with one and killed over 30 people in a restaurant! Ever heard of the Port Arthur Massacre? The government introduced the gun laws at the request of the Australian majority. I still remember the news coverage of the crime scene and the funeral services. The tragedy affected the entire country, and it was all thanks to an individual "right" to own a weapon that can kill three dozen individuals in a matter of seconds. quote: I can't believe that anyone could be a socialist or even admit to being one after watching the USSR fall on its face and then watching China, it is being forced into going with a free market economy more and more, why? BECAUSE SOCIALISM HOLDS NO REWARDS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! And therefore will fail EVERY time!! Until you can make the human race into the Borg, Socialism will ALWAYS fail!!! For the last time, THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALIST!!! They followed a model of Collective Capitalism that was engineered by Stalin. He called it "Socialism in one country" but it wasn't even close. Every Soviet and Chinese leader who calls their country Socialist or Communist is an insult to the real Socialists. The only possible exception is Lenin. I have written this before (in the other thread). Read my posts more carefully. [ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

I never said that you shouldn't have the right to have a gun. I'm just saying that having a gun in your hand makes you a bigger target for an armed suspect. Just the sight of a gun barrel can cause a twitchy finger to pull a trigger in fear. If you think that the risk is worth it, fine. By the way, Australians ARE allowed to own certain types of guns. The gun laws in Australia prohibit the ownership of semi-automatic and automatic weapons, which are not necessary in defending your home from intruders. In fact, I would be suspicious of anyone who carried a machine gun and claims that it's only for defense, unless he or she was living in Israel.

Since this thread is becoming a debate again, I have returned to give a brief opinion on the subject of guns deterring crime. If a robber enters your home with a gun, there is a good chance that he or she will not shoot you if you stay calm and follow his or her instructions. If both you and the robber have guns, someone is going to get killed for sure, and there is a good chance that it won't be the intruder. At least in the first scenario, you are less likely to end up with a bullet in you, and with those good odds, you can call the police afterwards. It also means one less murder in the record books, even if it is in the defense of property and family. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: Personally, I don't want to label you. The only label that counts around here is BCM Beta Tester. We just like to pass the time between patches with interesting current events dialogs. So, whatever your opinions, political leanings, social leanings, or whatever, as long as it is kept civil and respectful, and not taken too personally (the CAT team will step in if it gets out of hand), and as long as you like intellectual debates with willing counterparts, you can call yourself whatever you want as long as, at the end of the day, you still feel your debate opponent is your colleague in the Battlecruiser community. I completely agree.

quote: Prehaps these people should rise up against their oppressors! We did! How can these people rise up against fully armed mercenaries who have the financial support of one of the Big Three oil companies? quote: The fact is, the capitalistic system has brought more and better human rights to the world then any other known system in recorded history! Read the rest of the post that you were responding to, specifically the stuff about the gold mines, the lack of prosecution of oppressive corporations, and the death of a democratically elected President who resisted those corporations, then try to say the same thing again.

Here are some big excerpts from an essay I wrote last year as a University student in the course of Politics and Government about the relationship between Economic Liberalism and Capitalism and the negative effect that Capitalism has on Democracy: The Second Revision of the Macquarie Dictionary (1987;289) defines Capitalism as "a system under which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in large measure privately owned or directed." It can also be defined, especially in the case of Laissez Faire Capitalism, as the economic 'state of nature', where the economy is powered by the human drive or 'natural passion' to compete with other individuals for power...the individuals which possess the financial 'strength and art' (mostly strength), i.e. the owners of the means of production, compete with each other for financial domination of the market and higher profits through the recruitment and use of individuals who lack the financial 'strength and art' (again, mostly strength), i.e. the labour force, within their organization. ...In the context of the New Right, Economic Liberalism is a branch of economic thought which generally follows the paradigm of the Neoclassical Era of Economics, which pre-dated and declined during the Great Depression of the 1930s. It was resurrected during the mid 1970s to early 1980s, and remains today as the paradigm of most countries of the industrialized West. Economic Liberals, or Rationalists as they are known in Australia, are supporters of Laissez Faire Capitalism, believing that the market left on its own is the most efficient distributor of goods and services, at least according to the Economic Liberal interpretation of efficiency: maximum production at minimum cost. This belief makes Economic Liberalism a very accommodating branch of economic thought for business interests in a Capitalist system. ...the state of nature previously described occurs when there is no legitimate power (or 'commonwealth' [Hobbesian term]) capable of providing order and security for the consenting masses. Capitalism on its own has no legitimacy, being an economic state of nature. However, when Capitalism is combined with the ideological rhetoric of Economic Liberalism as a paradigm, which has no power on its own, it achieves the guise of a legitimate power, without which the labour force would be less likely to consent willingly to the owners of the means of production. Therefore, the symbiosis of Economic Liberalism and Capitalism creates a state of nature disguised as a legitimate power which appears to provide an economy with order and security for the consenting masses. In reality, it provides an economy with no security or order, not even for the businesses that dominate the market (recessions tend to make sure of that). ...In a state of nature, those who are strong and artful dominate, while the rest tend to be subjugated, just like in war, where the nation which has more military power and more cunning military leaders are more likely to defeat their opponents. In a Democracy, which literally means 'people rule' (from the Greek words 'demos' and 'kratos'), the consenting masses of a 'commonwealth' are the decision makers, either through direct participation, or through the election of representatives who theoretically rule at the request of the people for the common interests of the people. However, when the source of the majority of resources required to serve such interests, the economy, resides in a state of nature where a strong minority dominate, the decision making power of the people is compromised to the point where any decisions that reduce the power of the dominating minority in the economy can not be carried out. ...In conclusion, Democracy is challenged by a symbiosis of Economic Liberalism and Capitalism, due to its state of nature where a strong minority dominates the distribution of the majority of resources essential for living.

quote: I don't know about you, but buying booze with free money doesn't seem to be a very efficient way of "getting ahead". It also seems to indicate a lack of trial in getting ahead. What do you expect them to buy? A stock portfolio? The homeless who drink didn't always drink. They tried harder than you can imagine, and were put down even harder. They drink to escape the harsh reality of a system that doesn't care about people, only money. It's bad enough when you have to depend on a government that treats you like an inconvenience for survival. It's a lot worse when people who don't have to depend on anyone treat you like a worthless human being. If they didn't drink, they would kill themselves. Capitalism in very inhuman, no matter how small the percentage of poverty is. I don't care about the benefits of the system, only the people who suffer in expense, and there are many more than you think, not necessarily in America, but caused by the self-interests of the industrialized Western World (that includes America and Australia, but you knew that). Try going to Africa someday, specifically the remote areas of Nigeria. Try telling the homeless, starving people in those areas to work harder and be efficient in "getting ahead". Before they skinned you alive in disgust, they would tell you about the mercenaries who forced them off their land because they lived on top of an oil deposit that Shell wanted to drill. Try going to some of the gold mines in Central and South America, many of which are owned by citizens of the USA working hard to "make it happen", and you'll see workers and their families dying by the hundreds each year. Why? Because the gold mining companies use Cyanide compounds to separate the gold from the rock. The workers are exposed to the toxic fumes without protective clothing, and eventually their bodies become incapable of respiration (Cyanide kills the enzymes that carry oxygen). The toxic chemicals used on the rocks sink into the soil and pollute nearby rivers which nearby communities depend on for their water supply. These corporations are never prosecuted for their crimes against humanity despite the fact that they violate human rights every day, because the countries that they pillage have no laws against their practices. Why? Because the governments of those countries depend on the corporations for economic survival (thanks to free trade). If the leader of a country is brave enough to go against the "Blue Tide" of private interests, you can always count on the corporations, or even the US government, to provide military aid to pro-capitalist guerrillas. The best example of this occurred in Chile in the early 1970s, where Salvador Allende, the first democratically elected Socialist leader, went against the interests of the big corporations. In 1973, Allende was overthrown and killed in a coup led by Augusto Pinochet, thanks to military aid from the US government. Pinochet became a fascist dictator and ruled Chile for over sixteen years. Now you understand why I'm so angry, and shame on you if you're not as angered by the evil as I am. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

When I said that ten million Americans live in poverty, I was referring to real poverty (homeless, struggling to stay alive every day, by illegal means if necessary), and ten million is a generous approximation of a larger number (the exact figure could be twice the size). [ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Here is some more "emotional" stuff for you to chew on, if you dare. First of all, you need to learn a few things about political alignments. Economic liberals are supporters of free trade and competition, so don't call me a liberal when we're discussing economic issues. The Republican and Democratic parties in the USA are both aligned with Liberalism. The Republicans tend to be Classical Liberals (supporters of free trade, laissez faire capitalism etc.) while the Democrats tend to be a mixture of Classical and Modern Liberals (supporters of Keynesian economics and social welfare). Start reading a textbook or two on the subject of ideologies. Secondly, your economic facts are not facts at all, they are paradigms and theories illustrated by pretty graphs such as the Phillips Curve, the Price Elasticity line, the Demand/Supply Curve and so on. Yes, I did learn Economics in high school, and one of the first things I learned in University as a student of Politics and Government is that all of the stuff you learn in high school about Economics is crap, and any Economics course that teaches the same old theories in University is even crappier. Sometimes I make the mistake of trying to use my Economics knowledge to argue facts about how bad the system really is, but that's impossible because my Economics knowledge (the stuff I learned in school) is biased toward the system, and thus always contradicts with the facts. That's why my previous arguments have been chewed up so easily: I've been trying to discredit theories using the same theories. In order to criticize the system one must learn to avoid the pretty graphs and established theories about Economics, because they were all written by supporters of the current system. There are many left wing people out there who can give much better arguments using graphs, theories and facts than I can. These are the people who are experts in critical analysis and have read books by Smith and Friedman (Capitalists) as well as Marx and Engels (Communists). I prefer to be an emotional philosopher rather than an economist. My posts are particularly emotional because I'm angry at a society that recites the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with pride while at the same time supports an economic system that forces people to compete for the goods and services required to sustain life. When you have competition on a grand scale like a capitalist economy, there are bound to be people who lose the competition, even after they take all the opportunities that are offered to them. When you have a minority that has a headstart in the competition for life, such as a billion dollar bank account, a huge number of people lose no matter how successful the economy becomes. These people, most of which have worked harder to stay alive than anyone who owns a mansion, will become homeless and, depending on the current state of social welfare, turn to a life of crime. When many people in society who are relatively comfortable financially hear about the existence of poverty, they choose to label it as a result of lazy people unwilling to "make it happen". This is because they don't want to believe that after years of hard work, you can still end up starving to death (this happens more often than not). Despite the fact that the USA is the most powerful economy in the world, more than ten million Americans live in poverty. That doesn't include the millions more who live on minimum wage which is on the brink of the poverty line despite the efforts of unions. Want to know the real reason why cities such as Chicago have laws against loitering? To keep the homeless people in the dark alleys where they can't be seen! I have much more to say soon.