>>72
You have slipped a moral urgency into my reply which was not really present; moreover, the real burden rests on you to present your concept of an unequal system which is just. Bear in mind that there are at least two 'types' of equality- factual equality (not possible, and, by common sense, not even desirable), and equality of opportunity, which is a false assumption of American life. I am not making a general indictment of a system. I am pointing to the fact that specific inequities do exist at the present time which make current systems indefensible, taken in their totality. Do not assume that because I reject the 'equality' of current systems that I that I think a just, unequal system is impossible-indeed, it would appear to be the most probable and desirable social arrangement.