Simply put, we live in a society with increasing population and decreasing numbers of available jobs as processes become ever more efficient and autonomous. Neither of these can be easily stopped or reversed except catastrophically; they might be slowed at best. At the same time, however, we live in a society which requires everyone to be employed. If this situation continues then the point will inevitably be reached, if it hasn't already, where there just won't be enough jobs to go round and it will therefore be impossible for the unemployed and destitute to simply work themselves out of their situation if only they have the drive and ambition, as too many people dismissively like to proclaim. Sooner or later, this stance is going to become untenable, and the longer it takes before people recognise that, the worse the situation is going to become before it is fixed.

I never said that hard work alone is sufficient.

Let's examine your original post.

Trapped how? Who has trapped them there? Is someone keeping them in poverty against their will?

The truth is that most in poverty are there because of terrible decisions. Drug use, missed educational opportunities, or a simple lack of desire to better one's self.

We know of people who have made something of themselves who were born into just the poverty described. It can be done. Obviously, it takes much more effort than someone born into wealth, but it can be done.

By pretending that the poor hold no responsibility for their position, it makes it easier to blame the rich or the successful. And it makes it easier to take what they have earned and give it to those who haven't.

Sure looks to me like you're saying that anyone who's poor is in that state because they aren't trying. How is this different from "hard work is sufficient" to get one out of poverty?

But in most of those case you cite, I don't think it was "imperialism" that drove people but expansionism. We didn't go to the places you name in order to exploit the natives, we went there to make them us (granted, whether they wanted to or not).

While there are many technical differences between the imperialism of the past and the imperialism of today, they are still effectively the same. I can shoot you myself or build a robot to do it, either way I am a murderer. The US is not annexing Iraq because it no longer has to in order to exploit it. The invasion paved the way to foreign investors and developers whose profits will benefit the corporate interests of the United States and others. The game has not stopped, it has become more sophisticated.

You can use another word if you like, but the behavior is still unethical for the same reasons.

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

Which reminds me of something Robert Ingersoll said in praising the abolitionists,

He loves his country best who strives to make it best. The bravest men are those who have the greatest fear of doing wrong. Mere politicians wish the country to do something for them. True patriots desire to do something for their country.

Americans today seem complacent about doing wrong -- at least judging by the majority's lack of concern about torture or denying habeas to suspected terrorists. Nor, it seems, do we care much about making our country best (except in weaponry). We've fallen behind the European democracies in just about all measures of public health and welfare, but I don't see much concern about it among Americans.

Instead we have a libertarianism which repudiates the notion (found in the Preamble to the Constitution) that government should have power to "promote the general Welfare" of the people.

I'll admit that luck can sometimes play a part, both for good or ill. I never said that hard work alone is sufficient. One must also make good decisions.

The error in this is that there are many people who literally cannot make good decisions because their extreme poverty means that the only options available to them are all bad ones. Consider this case of a Cambodian family:

Nhem Yen's eldest daughter, who was twenty-four and pregnant with her second child, promptly caught malaria. There was no money to get medical treatment (effective drugs would have cost less than $10), and so she died a day after giving birth. That left Nhem Yen looking after five children of her own and two grandchildren.

The family had one mosquito net that could accommodate about three people. Such nets are quite effective against malaria, but they cost $5 — and Nhem Yen could not afford to buy any more. So every night, she agonized over which of the children to put under the net and which to leave out.

"It's very hard to choose," Nhem Yen told me. "But we have no money to buy another mosquito net. We have no choice."

What "good decisions" would you recommend this woman make to lift herself and her seven-child family out of poverty?

So I should expect you to never criticize that democratically enacted law, right? Are you really so statist that you think that every law passed is automatically just?

To the degree that the Patriot Act, or any other law, violates the Constitution's guarantees of civil rights, it is unjust. On the other hand, there is and should be a strong presumption of justice in favor of any law passed through the democratic process - particularly in this case, where the law is actually a constitutional amendment passed by a super-majority. This doesn't mean we can't criticize it, or advocate changing it - those are parts of the democratic process. What one can't do is imply, as you have, that this law somehow unfairly dropped on you out of the sky. A law is not unjust simply because you disagree with it.

BTW, please point out the section of Article I that gives Congress the power to redistribute wealth.

I've got a better idea - I'll quote the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Surely the aim is to provide equality of opportunity? Unless you can provide that it is unfair to blame everyone for their situation.

It proves nothing of the sort. How do you know that there aren't people working equally as hard who simply lack the opportunity or good fortune that others have been lucky enough to get? Hard work may be a necessary condition for getting out of poverty, but that doesn't mean it's a sufficient one.

I'll admit that luck can sometimes play a part, both for good or ill. I never said that hard work alone is sufficient. One must also make good decisions. If you make 50K a year but spend it on frivolous pursuits, then your hard work is negated by your poor decisions.

You can't keep a good man down. Someone who is willing to work hard to better their life will succeed.

To belabor the obvious, it's because you live in America, and those are the rules for people who live in America, as agreed to by our democratically elected government. It is a just result because it was arrived at in accordance with the Constitution and through the process of democracy in which you have a say equal to everyone else's.

Hmmm, just like the patriot act. So I should expect you to never criticize that democratically enacted law, right? Are you really so statist that you think that every law passed is automatically just? BTW, please point out the section of Article I that gives Congress the power to redistribute wealth. "Accordance with the Constitution" my ass!

Your taxes pay for the social services which benefit all citizens, including you. That's part of the social contract you implicitly agree to by living here.

I'm more than willing to pay for the services that benefit us all equally, like police, fire departments, and roads. But I get nothing from the welfare system. It only takes from me.

I'm very disappointed. I suppose that you would have told Frederick Douglas to just do what his master told him because "that's part of the social contract you implicitly agree to by living here."

This is one case where the old saying actually is appropriate: if you don't like it, you're free to leave.

Yes, I am free to leave, but I'm not going to. I'm going to stay and fight the socialists who value equality of outcome more than personal responsibility.

To belabor the obvious, it's because you live in America, and those are the rules for people who live in America, as agreed to by our democratically elected government. It is a just result because it was arrived at in accordance with the Constitution and through the process of democracy in which you have a say equal to everyone else's

Technically, wasn't the US founded as a Republic? Direct democracy didn't even arise until 1913 with the 17th amendment. Coincidentally, that's the first year for the imposition of the income tax. (I have a copy of the original tax form - a 1% tax rate on income over $20K...in 1913!)
The debate has mostly been settled in the direction of greater democracy (and that's for the best I think), but that doesn't mean the republic is entirely up for grabs. If 98% of the population voted to ransack the top 2%, it wouldn't make it right or legal. Those who argue against "government theft", I would surmise, are coming from this point of view, i.e. the country should be ruled by law, rather than "mob rule." And the law, of course, respects property holders - always has. Please note I am NOT a libertarian. But, the historic view of the US shows us a hybrid: a republic AND a democracy.
In California, (and other states, I think) initiatives are sometimes voted on en masse on ballots and may even contain proposed amendments to the CA constitution. This is the evolution of democracy to its purest form, direct democracy. In the last election, there was a ballot initiative to raise taxes on oil companies and cigarettes significantly - basically penalizing unpopular businesses and sending more money into govenment coffers without oversight. This is exactly the sort of populous excess that can ensue when democracy goes unchecked. It's a bit reckless. No one is safe when everyone, potentially, has a say in what happens to people's property. You never know when everyone will turn on you in hard times.

My evidence is every person who has pulled themselves out of poverty. They prove that it can be done if one is willing to work hard and make good decisions.

It proves nothing of the sort. How do you know that there aren't people working equally as hard who simply lack the opportunity or good fortune that others have been lucky enough to get? Hard work may be a necessary condition for getting out of poverty, but that doesn't mean it's a sufficient one.

But your answer is to force me under penalty of prison to render asistence, regardless of my own personal circumstances. How is that just?

To belabor the obvious, it's because you live in America, and those are the rules for people who live in America, as agreed to by our democratically elected government. It is a just result because it was arrived at in accordance with the Constitution and through the process of democracy in which you have a say equal to everyone else's. Your taxes pay for the social services which benefit all citizens, including you. That's part of the social contract you implicitly agree to by living here. This is one case where the old saying actually is appropriate: if you don't like it, you're free to leave.

I'm extremely unpatriotic about my country, and have always found the whole saluting the flag and 'My country right or wrong', of America, slightly barmy, though I do think the way Carl Schurz puts it is a good motto to have. There is many a good thing to be said for the dreams and aspirations of America, but, sadly, those aspirations are not always fulflilled.