>>13
You are in error. The human reproductive cycle and early development require an enormous social investment to succeed. That a man, and I may add only a highly trained man, can walk into the wilderness and survive, does not change man's social nature.
The rest of your statements are equally erroneous, though it is fair for you to disagree with my placing the values of charity and altruism above all others. This simply lets me know that you have a value system that is incompatible with mine, and therefore deem you an unsuitable member of my preferred society. Guess we can't trade in values. When you speak of trade you really mean commerce, and your words reek of objectivism.
Poverty is not ubiquitous. Where?
Poverty would disappear if... Yeah... poverty's just about how hard you work. Fortune, random chance, intelligence, and even the weather play no part eh? Nonsense.
BTW, your inability to understand my statement about what we are "forced" to do may be due, in part, to a lack of context. The contemporary global nationalist framework forces us to pick a nation to belong to. Your individual human has no place left to go and be antisocial. All of the land has been gobbled up, and armies built to hold it. So like it or not we're stuck in this together until society collapses, or you're ready to fight for what you believe in. So though we may be "forced" to belong to one of these societies, as I explained before social welfare is administered from willing (or willing enough) contributions to a general pool and administered by our elected representatives.
This is the real world. Your "values" are intellectual experiments. One is kind, or unkind; generous or selfish; good or evil. A wise man knows that judgment and blame are irrelevant, that there is only to help, or to refuse help.