Who here has been paying attention to what has been happening with Belgium's economy?

Why would we want to fight "income inequality" at all? I hear this term all the time. We spent 45 years or so after then end of WWII defending ourselves against a system that was based on (theoretically) the idea of income equality.

Um, so that we don't end up like that country? Crushing income, lack of opportunity, and a huge disparity of income and wealth is what led to the Russian Revolution.

You seem to forget fighting a losing war to Germany for several years prior, too, and one to Japan some time before that.

In fact, let me get this straight. Despite the fact that we don't have a monarchy or hereditary nobility and despite the fact that "poverty" or lack of opportunity in this country is laughable compared to the state of Imperial Russia, we need to have a lot of government to (supposedly) address those social issues. If we don't, we'll encounter the problems of a country that (wait for it) had a big oppressive government and ended up having an even bigger, more oppressive government. That's your line of reasoning? We need big government (which social regulation is) in order to avoid the problems of a different kind of big government (which we don't have) in order to avoid.. having an even bigger, more oppressive government?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of having emergency (like, REAL short term, REAL emergency) social safety nets, some basic health, safety, and environmental regulation, and laws to prevent companies from shooting striking workers with hired goons. Problems with things like "income inequality" go far beyond that, however. Income should be unequal. That's been demonstrated. There is no reason to achieve if there's no reward for it.

we need big government (which social regulation is) in order to avoid the problems of a different kind of big government (which we don't have) in order to avoid.. having an even bigger, more oppressive government?

but that we need social regulation in order to maintain the legitimacy of the state, and not end up with a bloody revolution. My point is that to maintain the legitimacy of the government, you need to show some concern for the have-nots. Apparently, we do that today by addressing income inequality. The Romans did it by staging gladiatorial combat and providing subsidized food.

And, sure, we don't have a de jure nobility, but I would argue that there's a de facto nobility. Rich kids get into the best schools (sometimes on the strength of simply their family connections ("Legacies")), and certainly have more opportunities to make their likelihood of success much greater. (Heck, I still dont' know why Liv Tyler is given acting roles, and I've heard the same thing about Kate Hudson. It's unlikely they'd be part of our) And, you know, we have this image of "nobility" as always being hereditary, but many societies had ways of allowing people to become "noble", through service to the ruler, performance on the battlefield, etc. Of course, we've had this discussion before, I'm sure.

Poverty is a relative concept. I suspect the wealth gap between the richest people in the US and the poorest is significantly greater than the gap between the richest and poorest in the old Russian Empire. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it's an order of magnitude greater, to be honest.

Anybody that thinks the United States isn't ruled by an aristocracy hasn't paid attention to the political dynasties that reign over Congress. We do have a hereditary noble class, and it has nothing to do with the rich kids going to the best schools - that's actually a red herring.

What we do have here is opportunity for those who aren't members of the ruling nobility. It is possible to go from a blacksmith's apprentice to a rail baron like Jay Gould. Yes, later on, their kids do go to the best schools. The actual American nobility point bring that up in order to sow public discontent and keep the masses from realizing that the same families have been ruling them in Washington for generations.

There's not a US nobility at all. What there is, is opportunity. Wealth greases the skids of opportunity, but it's not required.