I know this wasn't directed towards me, but I'd like to toss in a comment anyway.

>"In practice, I'd have to say that free-market capitalism
>increases wealth disparity, or at the very least fails to
>decrease it. (Socialist systems decrease it very bluntly by
>direct redistribution of wealth.)"
>
>So do you favor socialistic blunt force redistribution of
>wealth, or do you think there are other options in a
>free-market capitalistic (which I would argue the US is not)
>society that would lead to lower wealth disparity. It seems
>to me that competition of the free-market variety almost
>always ends up as a win for the consumer, and since this
>affects the poor more than the rich (they spend more of what
>they make) wouldn't capitalism tend to help the poor in the
>general sense, if not decreasing wealth disparity in the
>specific sense?

It can probably raise the general wealth / standard of living level of everyone, sure. People we'd consider poor now have some things that even the richest didn't have a hundred years ago. But in terms of wealth disparity, hell no. A capitalistic system is the very antithesis of decreasing wealth disparity -- getting more stuff than the other guy is exactly what the profit motive is about, more or less, right?

The ideal is that you'll do something in the market to increase your wealth -- work hard, make an innovative product, find a way to offer an equivalent service for less than the other guy, whatever. Problem is, at least from a wealth disparity -> crime perspective, is you might decide that with the resources or education or whatever you have to work with, your best move in the market is to become a drug dealer or pimp or knock over liquor stores.

Personally, I don't think either a pure capitalistic system or a pure socialistic system have all the answers. Either extreme breaks down, because of human nature, if nothing else.