Mav,

You're quite correct. We have a representative Republic. I was going more for the spirit than the letter. "Capitalism is just an economic system we happen to have" I was using the world to describe an economic system without implication of right or wrong. "American free enterprise is the entity born of economic freedom and is a natural phenomenon of human nature" Huh?. I understand the sentiment, just not the logic. "Natural phenomenon? " How so. Nature (ecological systems in general) tend to cooperation and diversity. Mutualism and symbiotic relationships are far more common than the contrary. In an ecological system, when something interferes with one element of the overall population, the system will return to its prior stability (and maintain the same ratios of species). The analogy can only be carried so far in dealing with people, but it gives an indication that cooperation may be the natural order of things.. Given tax incentives, tax breaks, tariffs and all the other government programs to benefit "free enterprise", we don't seem to have that here, either. When we were closer (the 1800's and early 1900's)), the consequences ran contrary to the principals of the constitution. "Since socialism requires government participation (and partial ownership) in business, I don't think you are correct. Any government ownership of Wall Street Securities starts down that road". Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Government from owning property. If our elected representatives pass a law to that effect (there are currently some laws to the contrary), then we could. "How about, no paycheck stub, no address, on welfare, got felonies...no right to vote." Because all the people you list are part of "We the People"...who decided, through constitutional amendment, that property rights(among other things) weren't going to be a criteria for who votes. You don't have to like all the People, how they live or how they think, but if you accept the Constitution as currently enacted, you play by the rules. Your prescription also moves further away from democratic ideal. If you value the idea of inalienable human rights (in part as listed in the Bill of Rights) then why propose an oligarchy? History shows they aren't very supportive of ideas like individual rights and sentiments like "We the People." "I don't think the takers should be picking the pockets of the makers" Should makers be picking the pockets of makers? Under your theory, should I have had to subsidize the Chrysler government loan? Bail out the savings and loan. Suffered higher car prices because of import tarriffs. Should their be export tarrifs?

You seem to look at valid problems in our society and see solutions. And not consider possible consequences of those solutions.

Regards,

John