You object to people giving away money however they want? What was your point in pointing out inheritance as a way in which wealth is acquired w/o the wealthy person having earned it themself? What does who earned the wealth have to do with anything?

I could understand the relevance of pointing out if money was acquired through the commission of crimes, but why point out inheritance? Why does it matter to the topic if the money was earned by its current possessor or given to them by he who earned it? It's a fact that she did not, herself, earn the money from the general public. But why is that relevant to the topic?

I think you are tired and/or drunk, which caused you to reference her/inheritance without any clear reason why. Are you suggesting that the public does have the right to steal money from people if they inherited it, rather than personally earned it?

Teresa Heinz's family (in-laws) earned the money she now has. Are you objecting to freedom here? People that earn money shouldn't be able to do with it what they please? The money she has was ill-begotten because it was inherited? When the person who earns money dies, their right to what they earned vanishes? Please elaborate your reasoning behind discriminating against inherited wealth as somehow not earned. Somebody earned it. And they're still owed its worth.

"While there are exceptions (stock market)"

These people provide capital which allow businesses to grow and expand, creating wealth, providing desired goods/services to customers, and jobs to employees. In the case of simply buying stock, those buying stock don't make a profit unless their investment results in more jobs, products/services, and/or production.

It's that simple. And it's not debatable. Why do you hate free markets so much? You've repeatedly demonized the stock market/free market, but I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about. You sound like a liberal blaming banks and Wall Street for the actions of politicians in DC; you sound like you're referencing a convenient scapegoat and hoping nobody who hears you is educated enough to call you on it. Nobody is forced to go public with their business. Nobody is forced to buy stocks or trade options. The free market--that stocks are sold--generates a lot of capital and allows for a lot of growth (jobs, expansion, development).

I think the freedom of business owners and investors is a good thing. I think the creation of jobs, expansion, and growth are good things. You obviously disagree, which I find puzzling.

Regardless: My point is that he claims democratic systems/functions/ideas/ideals only work in circumstances which are 0% free and 0% democratic. It's paradoxical and [pointless].

He can believe democratic ideas are stupid, don't work for X purpose, or whatever he wants. But to pretend that democratic ideas only work under completely non-democratic circumstances is [silly] and nonsensical.

The Riddler, xeno doesn't think democracy works unless it's in a tyrannical communist dictatorship. Good luck discussing democratic principles with him.

Anything thing for ignorant people to not understand and make claims about anyway.

"(and hopefully, a few others join with me and ignore this thread)"

Hahahahahha now if only we can get him to do this before creating such spam.

"The ELITE, because they are the ones who tend to have time (they don't work), the money, and, obviously, the opportunity to create more wealth, whereas the poor and middle class have NONE of that, because they MUST work, they don't have the money, and they don't have the same access to opportunities to create wealth that the elite have."

Yeah, the wealthy are all lazy slobs. None of them got their wealth as a reward for providing something epic that we chose to purchase in the free market. Non-rich people have 0 free time and no ability to think! What morons the poor are! I'm with you xeno! Preach on!

"Technology should AT LEAST level the playing field if not tilt it in the poor and middle class's favor so as to provide AT LEAST the same opportunity to garner wealth that the rich do.  Can we say this about our societies today?  No."

Yeah! We're not free at all! Nobody's ever made money in society today by working hard! It's NOT FAIR! *cries along with xeno*

"Zarf, if it is going to be a constructive discussion, great.  If not, then I'm not interested.  In order to move on to have constructive dialogue, we have to agree that,"

It would appear that you're either too [busy] to understand his arguments, or too rude to reply to them.

"1. having a more egalitarian distribution of wealth in society is a GOOD thing for EVERYBODY."

Why don't you move to North Korea? You'll live in your perfect world, and they can't afford/aren't allowed on the internet so we won't have to feel bad when we see you crying.

"2. the current distribution of wealth in our societies is ANTITHETICAL to the values purported to be held dear to liberal democracies."

"Liberal democracy" does not mean the same thing as "communist state." You gotta work on your vocabulary.

Dude it's a FACT that ancient Greeks had more equality than us! We're like regressing in social progress dude! Hit this!

Or that light produced on a spaceship traveling at light-speed will travel at 2x light-speed. =P

No, it didn't.

hahaha. Paragraph 2 was just win.

I believe that men must take bold action now. Because a meteor won't just happen! And plagues take too long!

Oh yeah, and there's that. Thanks for actually backing up my previous statements with factual facty things.