: Do people value food when they're hungry 'differently'? Do people value health care when they're sick 'differently'?Irrelevant emotive re-interpretation of the above to suit your purpose.
Simply restated, some people like A more than B and seek A more than B. To attempt to undermine this by talking about people near death does nothing to counter the truth of mankind being a *disciminatoy* selector of options as evidenced by the fact that people do not behave randomly.
: So this statement justifies oppression by the minority?
So your statement justifies oppression by the majority? The issue is oppression, what it really means. You seem to support the principle that some people can oppress other poeple - your only caveat being that the oppressors must be larger in number than the oppressed - the principle is precisely the same as a singular dictator, the only disagreement is over numbers.
At least your support of the principle of tyranny is now out in the open.
: I include this golden oldie of yours because it demonstrates conclusively that when cornered, you just simply make stuff up!
You never quite understood the everest post did you - you actually took it as read. Most amusing.
Anyway lets look at Business Week and see if they will be considered credible when they say, having quoted the very same statisitics as you have;
"Happily, private ownership is uniquely well suited to provide today's missing "connectivity." Why? Because at their core, property rights operate as a signaling system, connecting people to their economy in a way that enables them to register their personal concerns so that free enterprise performs in a genuinely people-responsive fashion."
(June 8, 1998)
Is he agreeing with you in some convoluted way or is he a capitalist because he supports *private* and therefore exclusive property?
Or how about this, from *liberal* economist Galbraith;
"Recent developments lend credence to Galbraith's theory. Until 1996, inequality had climbed steadily since the mid-1970s, while unemployment had waxed and waned with the business cycle. But the jobless rate, Galbraith notes, hadn't fallen below 5% since the 1960s. And when it finally did two years ago, inequality stopped climbing. Since then, as unemployment fell further, the rich-poor gap has seemed to be narrowing for the first time in decades. This is no accident, Galbraith asserts. Using standard economic regressions, he finds that the jobless rate explains 80% of the fluctuations in inequality from 1920 to 1992."
(September 14, 1998)
Looks like things have changed from 1996, and thats assuming the original interpretation and data gathering exercises were correct. hence your 1997 article, not very useful as we near 2000. Also - note where the blame is levelled - the federal reserve, and note who libertarians dont really like - government financial institutions.
Now lets get some statistics to show that the poor are getting richer, that the wealth gap is not as frightening as you want it to be.
How about this from the Red Herring (August 97)
http://www.herring.com/mag/issue45/school.html
If that doesnt work try this reprint from evil bunch - the hoover institute
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/981/henderson1.html
A discussion (with figures) thats bound to annoy
http://www.wellingtonpublications.com/hpr/taso/poverty/part4.html
Ofcourse - feel free to disregard it as 'capitalist propoganda' but if you do remember that you *must* Business Week as it has articles apparently disagreeing. Or will you finally accept that data can be analysed to support either position if criteria are altered, as per Septimus' point.
In other words dont quote two articles and assume them to be everything you need to know about poverty, and certainly dont portray yourself as having 'caught' anyone out at all.
