ubernoir wrote:
The US has the most unequal society on Earth when looked at from a certain point of view. Yes it is very much the land of opportunity. You can become very rich in America but it has huge income inequalities.

Yes, that's where we differ... I have no problem with economic inequality. In fact, I prefer it. I also disagree that there is an American class system (your quote, below). Yes, every society has those who can't help themselves, because of physical or mental handicaps, and that's why charity is important. However, most of us can help ourselves, and most of us are exactly where we have put ourselves. We have the freedom to do something to change our financial positions if we have the drive to do so. Financially, we can move up or down at will, but it takes work and a sense of responsibility to improve one's position, and some don't like to hear that.

ubernoir wrote:
Being born into a particular socio economic group is the largest determinate of your future income. America has a class system. Something Americans hate to hear but who honestly thinks George W Bush is a self made man.

George Bush might not have been a self made man, but what about Bill Clinton? One doesn't have to be born into a wealthy and/or influential family in order to succeed in this country. It's an advantage, but not a necessity.

ubernoir wrote:
I would argue that it is about looking beyond purely economic concerns to social and moral ones. There are questions of fairness and justice...

I don't believe that success should or can be guaranteed. Each of us has different talents, we want different things, we have different lifestyles, we measure success differently, and we have different levels of motivation for achieving our desired goals. We should all have the freedom to pursue what we want, but it's not society's place to ensure equal outcomes in the lives of all individuals. Opportunity should be about fairness, but outcome should be about merit.

ubernoir wrote:
To be a Star Trek nerd for a second I believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one but it is also true that the liberty of the many arises out of the liberty of the one or the few.

I'm a big fan of the 1960s series, but I never cared for the movies or the spin-offs. As for "the liberty of the many arises out of the liberty of the one or the few," that's a good point. I understand your argument about moral obligation to humanity, but I don't think it's in a society's best interest to condition individuals to feel entitled to a certain level of success. The old concept of teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish is still relevant.

RE: The Conservative Revival - New York Times