@Fido,
Profit does not fall from the sky like Manna... One man's gain is a loss to another, and the gain of a few is a loss to the whole nation... Let me ask you: Can they defend alone the wealth they have gathered unto themselves without the help of the very people they have taken it from??? The OWS will not fix the problem, because they are powerless to do more than point to it...It is the retarded tea party, in the interest of preserving its wealth from the government which will likely destroy the ability of the government to defend any wealth, and leave it struggling to defend even it power from the people... The OWS are constructive... The tea party is destructive, and as much as I hate the power behind the placards, and the obvious manipulation of the government by the rich through the tea party, it is the tea party which must succeed for the OWS to see any progress... The society is too late to resuscitate... The rich can kill their body guard...The OWS should let them...
[/quote]
More pseudo-revolutionary drivel.
First of all you embrace a simplistic and false perception of wealth.
Clearly you have blocked your mind from appreciation that it is not a zero-sum game, because to do otherwise would upset your sanctimonious "principles."
One man's gain is not necessarily a loss to another unless theft is involved. I appreciate that you consider capitalism to be nothing more than theft but you are utterly ignorant in this regard.
Who lost when Bill Gates made his billions on Windows?
Who lost when Richard Branson made his billions on Virgin Airways?
Sometimes, however, one man's gain can be another man's loss without theft being involved.
For example, when the telephone was invented it probably resulted in quite a few messenger boys losing their jobs. When the automobile was invented, businesses fundamentally dependent upon beasts of burden lost their income.
The primary distinction is that when those who profited by the commercialization of telephones and combustion engines became rich, the number of jobs their commerce created greatly outnumbered those that were lost.
Although I would venture to guess that you are quite comfortable with being called a Progressive, you are, actually, much more of a conservative than me.
Without progress everyone who has a job today has a good chance of keeping it tomorrow. Unfortunately, you cannot restrain technological and economic progress without dooming your society to stagnation and death. Unless you were elected King of The World tomorrow, no matter how you retarded progress locally, you could not restrain it elsewhere. Once other societies embrace technological and economic progress, those that do not fall into the ash bin.
You seem to imagine a world wherein there are no losers and everyone is a winner. My kids imagined that world when they were adolescents, and it would be as nice a world as the one wherein no one got sick and everyone was happy.
My experience tells me that folks espousing your arguments have quite a different take on the natural world.
In the natural world, man should remain an observer and never interfere.
Save snail darters rather than bring water to a thirsty population.
Save spotted owls rather than provide a mean of living to thousands of humans.
Only Nat-Geo philistines give names to their animal subjects and heaven forefend they attempt to save a leopard cub from a pack of hyenas.
And yet when it come to humans, man, in the form of Government, should stick it's long nose in every human activity and attempt to determine who wins and who loses.
