Übergeek 바둑이: You may joke about the rich playing golf but one has to wonder why, when trying to make a serious point, you resort to a sarcastic remark. The middle class play tennis too. So what? It's a meaningless statement and doesn't advance the discussion.

"Some rich people also took risks, opened a business and got rich by exploiting hundreds of people in their companies. It is not all about idealizing capitalism. Reality is never quite as nice as ideology paints it."

Some. so what? How exactly does the "some" have any significance when discussing the whole?

"I know another businessman like that. He owns a paving company here. He employs hundreds, runs a professional soccer team, and also finds the time to help others. Not everyone is a ruthless predator. The truth is that it is a mixed bag because the rich are as prone to the failings of human nature as the poor are."

This is not the narrative that is being pushed. The narrative is that all rich people should pay more, give more, because they "owe it to society." Meanwhile, what about those that have less? Shouldn't they do more too (as opposed to contributing nothing except to act as leeches sucking off the benefits of the hard work of others)

"Then there are those who would do anything to make more money. Ponzi schemes, big organized crime, exploiting and abusing others. subverting governments, corrupting politicians and law enforcement personnel, etc."

That's not news to anyone. It's these people who need to be opposed, not the rich as a class of people.

"We hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spending billions in charitable work. Then we hear of Bernie Madoff and other crooks."

So we applaud Bill Gates and put the Madoffs in jail. It works that way with all classes, or should.

"Some rich people go so far as to resort to murder to make a profit. For example, there is now big problems with a Canadian-owned gold mine in Guatemala where the company sent armed crooks to force peasants out of their land so that he mine could extract the gold. They killed several local activists that wanted the mine to stop polluting the local river water because people in nearby villages are developing cancer and other diseases. We have cases like the Bopal disaster in India. It has been 27 years and people in India are still trying to get compensation from Union Carbide."

Of course they do. There are evil people in the world. These people need to be exposed and dealt with. But that is NOT what's being advoated by the left.

"Reality is somewhere in between because we as human beings are full of contradictions. The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He became the world's first billionaire and gave millions to charity. He helped many poor people with all the money he made through his Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). At the same time, he gave millions of dollars to the Nazis and supplied the Nazis with the fuel and patents to power their war planes. Rockefeller also gave a lot of money to Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain. Rockefeller did these things because he hated communism and believed in eugenics. Rockefeller had a reputation for honesty and kindness, and also a reputation as a fascist."

Rockefeller is an exceptional case. And he is not an example to apply to the whole. It's cherry picking. You can come up with bad examples, I can come up with good. So what? How do any of these example apply to the bigger question?

"Unfortunately, capitalism has done more harm than good around the world."

Wrong. Capitalism hase brought more prosperity to the world than any other system. People who have exploited the system have done harm. But you have far more harm being done in a communist system than in capitalism.

" It is always easier to hide behind ideology than to admit that profitting though human suffering is wrong."

This can be said of any system. Again, people doing evil things. But for you as an atheist, isn't it difficult for you to justify the standard you are demanding? On what basis do you say a man can't exploit the weakness of others? Who says? Society? The world? By what authority do they say that? At the point of the gun? Then it boils down to who has the biggest gun. If there is no objective right or wrong, only a subjective one, then morals and ethics are up for grabs. Who says what Rockefeller did was wrong? YOu?? Who are you to make that claim? Why is it wrong to support a cause you beieve in? Who determines the value of any cause? Is exploiting the poor wrong just because you don't like it or is there a higher value at play? If so, what is it?