Powder Miner, I don't even need to debate with you whether you are right or wrong on your points.
Yes you do.
It is a simple fact that large amounts of people, and a substantial portion of them every bit as intelligent and hard-working as the super rich, are facing homelessness, starvation, and lack of needed medical care.
Doesn't mean you should punish the rich (It's not even just the super-rich)
They are fighting for self-preservation. No amount of reasoning is going to convince them to stop fighting for their own survival.
We can't say the same about improving the economy can we?
Whether or not the haves truly earned everything they have, this is going to come down to the simple fact that they share or people die. If they choose not to share, then the people will attempt to take in order to avoid dying.
A: "They share or people die"? Not really. People always die no matter what you do, and my view on things is that if you force equality, everyone fights for survival. This is not what is preferred. And if they do attempt to forcibly take, that is what police are for. I don't care who you are, I do not condone robbery.
This has always been a feature of society to some extent, but civilization has always gone through cycles where resources get too concentrated in too few hands and too many people are made to suffer to be shunted off to the fringes of society where they can be ignored.
Not really actually, not at all. Middle classes
are a rare thing. They've only really ever existed in modern life and in Rome. Saying that we're in a cycle and this is a point is incorrect- that cycle never existed. Historically, most of civilization has been rich and poor. There's no cycle, and the problem we have to deal with now is the restrictions on business- less money in businesses equals less money for jobs equals less jobs equals more poor and starving people. This same equalizing approach has been tried by Europe, and well look at them now. Equalizing doesn't work.
[/quote]