Blimey, I see we have a monarchist amongst us who believes in predetermination.
The fact of the matter is that societies can escape suffering if they choose to. It is a 'prisoners' dilemma' situation. If everyone cooperates then on average everyone is better off. If people do not cooperate, then some are better off but most are worse off, and on average we are all worse off. The way we get to all be better off is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. This obviously affects the minority rich most, which is why they try so hard to prevent it. But they benefit too because the poor dont just look at that money, they spend it and the profits from what they buy continue to trickle up to the rich who own those companies.
Not sure about monarchist

I just don't think that folks that are dressed up and have titles like "king" or "president" or "senator" are as powerful over us as we are made to believe - hence, those issues aren't as "big" as we make them. Once a mandate is gone, a once powerful person is quite easily shown to be as weak as any individual (see Louis XVI or any other head of gov't/state that has been overthrown or murdered).
As for the policies, my point is that first world societies are becoming more and more heterogeneous, which makes convergence on an agreed method, philosophy, or plan about addressing major social issues very difficult. Political discourse in the US has devolved to each party rejecting measures by the other out of hand, without real discussion. So yes, any policy that is enacted is done so contentiously, legislation is filled with pork barrel, political modifications that water down the intent, and frequently contracted out to third parties (ie government contractors) who are free to act without the same constraints as government actors. Hence my comment about the constant need for further corrective policy if and when a policy on a contentious issue is passed. That's a pretty inefficient way of addressing fundamental problems like the stability of the entire monetary system, or excessive debt. Or what our nation's legal and financial stance should be towards people who are indigent.
Because you DO have power to influence it, but you have been brainwashed into thinking you do not. The poor became rich (which they are now, relatively) by going on strike, by demanding the vote, by voting in people with policies which favoured them (and incidentally everyone else). At the moment the poor have forgotten their power to influence events and propaganda like this is hardly helping.
Agreed. I do. The poor don't become rich by those methods you mentioned. The upper middle classes (the lawyers who represent the trade unions, the mid level managers who are the ones who effectively do the organization of the strikes, those are the ones who get rich) get rich.
The poor become rich through either being extremely good athletes, popular/very talented entertainers, achieving a high level of education/expertise particularly in science/technology, or develop exceptionally good business savvy. Areas that really have more to do with their personal self development and attitude than public policy. Poor have never become rich through the vote, strikes, or even any public policy to address poverty. I will do a factual call out. If you can provide me evidence of one scenario where a group of poor people (we'll define that as falling below the poverty line) attained an average income of $250k per year (or equivalent PPP if not in the US) or more through the methods you stated, then I will concede the point to you.
You are quite a pessimistic chap, arent you?
I'm an optimistic. I believe that regardless of what the folks in government do, I have the power to become wealthy through my own means. That most people in the US have access to resources that can get them there too (with perhaps the exception of the most marginalized poor). A great number of examples of people to validate my optimism, including my own parents.
I'd be a pessimist to believe that the only way to gain personal power is for some dude in a magical White House, or some group of dudes who meet regularly in a phallic shaped dome to magically decide to do something in my favor without ever having met me or anyone I know and who have fairly limited real knowledge about what goes on in my day to day life, and who rely on theories of economics that are pretty terrible at predicting human behaviors and their impacts on macro economies...you get my point. [/QUOTE]
Very true. I have no idea why torture has been restricted in official interrogations. What difference does it make to those being questioned?
You have never been tortured, or been trained to resist torture, have you?