I find it funny that a quick search on the subject yielded an article from the same site, with the opposite finding.

Article in 2007: Judge: Man can't be forced to divulge encryption passphrase
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html

Article in 2012: Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57364330-281/judge-americans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/

I'm fine with them breaking your encryption if they have probable cause; however, forcing you to give the password does seem to have a pretty straight-forward logical path to incriminating yourself (Especially if you are guilty and a subsequent search will yield something on the device).

Yeah, I'm definitely coupling capitalism and free-markets, thanks for the clarification :)

Spoken like a true BELIEVER, ;)

Mark me as a foe then. You are an angry person who likes to demonize and belittle people with opposing view points. I have had loads of experience with the likes of you.

I AM a believer in principles that I hold, until I'm shown good reason to change them. I was a strong believer in socialist ideas for many years until I heard some very profound arguments on Austrian economics and true free market ideals. At that point I decided I could no longer justify my previous leanings. I have no problem changing my viewpoints when confronted with compelling arguments. I have heard no such arguments today.

One thing I will give you is that my statement on the wealth gap did trivialize the practice of slavery and the general oppression of minorities in this country, even to the present day (see the continued drug war in America). I view this ongoing human tragedy as a social issue, not as an intrinsic property of the free market. We can argue about slavery and mistreatment of groups of people with ANY form of government. I did read the brief introduction and book excerpt from your link, "A People's History of Poverty in America," Stephan Pimpare. He makes a valid point in one paragraph about the distortion of basically free workers in the overall assessment of the system; This is an interesting point that I will be looking more closely at in the near future. However, my point was more towards the current 1% vs 99%, as opposed to poverty conditions of oppressed minorities; distort my argument if you want to, but as I have already admitted, my intention was not to minimize the suffering of so many people.

Its too bad you are closing off discussion; I find that argument and rational discussion with those who disagree with me are sometimes the most worthwhile conversations to have. They force you to defend your stances rationally and truly look at why you have them. A true believer connects emotionally with their argument, not rationally, and therefore finds it nearly impossible to change their ideas. That is not me, regardless of what you imply.

I've already written a good deal on this thread, but I appreciate your post and wanted to briefly comment...

(1) This is an excellent, excellent point. I can only say that America had a pretty close to ideal capitalist, free-market society, codified in the Constitution. Now, I would say that the departure from this ideal capitalism comes from heavy government regulation and failure to enforce violations of companies in the market on the property and contractual rights of the individual. This brings us to your example of Russia, yeah I can say now that we aren't really a capitalist society, but is this the inevitable result of implementing one, that you eventually get to the point where it no longer resembles one? I can't really counter this point, because its a valid one.

That comment actually pretty much includes your (1) and (2) points, so I'll leave it at that. Good discussion points, and I hope somebody picks them up and continues; however, that someone will not be me, I'm exhausted from all the posting :)