Just an aside to Dave Pape's and Psypher's conversation;
Being a political junkie, I am always looking for the political consequences possible in any ideology or philosophy. This bit about the poorer getting poorer and the richer getting richer, thereby widening the gulf....is nonsense. What seems to be implied by some is that the rich get richer always at the poor's expense. (Here I go again...)
Most nations that attempt liberal democratic governments and market economies have left the others in the dust. This is due to the marketplace of capital and ideas. Law and justice, science and technology, ethics and community: all these evolve four dimensionally through the constant competition and self-correction that is inherant in this system. Other nations arent any poorer than they used to be. We're just more stable and richer, causing an apparent widening of the gulf. This is due to the implimentation of successful policies that enable group cooperation, competition and individual creativity We have devised a superior "game". When poorer nations decide to throw out their old games and their rules the picture will change.
There are "poor" nations that are filty rich in natural resources out
there. And there are resource-poor nations that are economic powerhouses
(Japan). Playing our game would initiate the development of their
resources and the creation of the much needed infrastructure to perptuate their prosperity. Of course these aren't absolutes but pretty damn close. ........jim
PS...........Compare the Korean systems, or the old divided Germanies. Political science philosophes count for a lot.