Alright, Caph, you wanted to be controversial, so let's discuss stuff.<P>First of all, I would like to assert that Penelope Curz is merely <I>moderately</I> attractive, and that I dislike Poptarts.<P>But, on to Adrian and Eric's argument.<P>Pure Capitalism would be great, if not for one thing-- children inherit the wealth and position of their parents. I don't mind Bill Gates having a ludicrous amount of money, it doesn't matter to me. The plain and simple truth is, however, that he would be significantly less rich-- in fact, he'd probably be quite dead-- if fate had chosen to let him be born in Indonesia, or Sudan, or some similarly crappy country.<P>His children did not, at birth, deserve to be rich. They had contributed nothing as fetuses.<P>I would support pure capitalism if children were taken from their parents at birth, and placed in a standardized creche, where they all received the same opportunities for education and emotional development. That, however, is a bad idea.<P>I feel, therefore, that the resources of the rich should be used, in part, to support the poor. And, in saying so, I recognize that, in a global sense, I am one of the rich ones. I mean, I'm online, aren't I?<P>Of course, one of the things we have to take into consideration is that poor people are very often in their situation because of either personal or inherited <I>stupidity</I>. If I give money to the poor, I don't want to see them go out and get four kids and a drug habit because they think money is raining from the sky. I want to see food, shelter, medical care, and education.<P>Pure capitalism assumes that everyone is capable. Pure communism assumes that everyone is good. A middle-of-the-road approach is the only sensible option.