King tut

---Unrestricted Capitalism---
I'm not sure how you could infer that I believe in "unrestricted capitalism." I didn't mention anything about abolishing all labor laws, private rights of actions (lawsuits) for harm caused through pollution, etc. I'm against direct distribution of income and leveling.

Stay away from the academic "extreme to extreme" ping-pong game, I'm for moderation.

---Locke/Free Market---
Locke's property theory is that labor converts public property to private. I don't see how that's relevant, it supports my point but I'm not relying on it, I don't use him as support.

I also don't see why you are implying that I believe "the freer the market the better." There's direct evidence against that assertion (e.g. the above reasons).

---WalMart study---
Increasing/decreasing the number of people above or below the poverty line doesn't provide anything more than anecdotal evidence regarding the number of people in the middle class. You are making an assumption if you are implying that the increase in people below the poverty line was due to WalMart somehow moving people from the middle class to below the poverty line.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with market manipulation--are you referring to the stock market? How is WalMart manipulating the stock market?

I've never heard of that journal. What's a Swaminathan (sp?)? At any rate, even if WalMart somehow increased poverty in the immediate area, the journal does not mention if WalMart increased or decreased the "overall health" of the country, or whatever your test is. Even under your test, it's perfectly possible that WalMart increased the number of people below the poverty line in the immediate areas and increased the overall number of people in the middle class. So the study doesn't really provide any valuable information.

---Wealth---
Regardles of whether or not anyone believes the WalMart children "deserve" any amount of money, Sam Walton (I think that's his name) founded the company and earned the money, and I think that gives him the right to do whatever he wants with it. He could pick a name out of the phonebook and give his entire estate to that person if he wanted. Why should the government, or anyone else, be able to tell him what he can and can't do with his money?

If the goverment can order him, why can't it order us? What about a rule that no one could have more than $5,000 in liquid assets at any time, and $100,000 in total assets? Or how about $2,000 and $50,000? The excess would be given to someone else who is below these limits.

---Haiku---
This one is pretty good:
My brain aches for you
Blood taints the white fallen snow
How satisfying

Sometimes the text doesn't really appear, I have to highlight it to get it to show. Is the font the same color as the background or something?