I tend to suspect this is the thinking of a person who has never been homeless or hungry, or put their kids to bed hungry :-)

I never claimed I had ever gone hungry or been homeless, or that I had ever put my children to be without food.  (I don't even have children.)  Instead of actually discussing the topic, you chose circumstantial ad hominem.

Surely you're not equating economic pressures with a thug breaking someone's knees with a baseball bat.  The distinctions you're drawing on choices is not one of freedom vs. a lack of freedom.  Choosing between excellent colleges is a nice choice.  Choosing between welfare and Wal-Mart is not.  Both are free choices.

I'm not sure how my views are "pseudo-darwinistic" (whatever that is).  Don't you mean socially-darwinistic?  (I'm not that, either, as plenty of my comments will demonstrate.)  And where did you get this idea -- that I support the wealthy amassing more and more wealth at the expense of the many?  That's one hell of a straw man.  You point on my views of regulatory intervention is flawed, to put it charitably.  My point was that the kind of regulation that is often discussed would be useless, at best, and counterproductive, at worst.

In any event, perhaps you could read my comments properly and discuss the topic, instead of trying to discredit me (by attacking me) with logical fallacies.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.