You figured correctly. My screen name was inspired by Bill's wonderful speech in Buffalo NY a few years ago. I can't remember his exact words but it was something like: "we'd let you keep your money if only you'd spend it right". Whattaguy. Anyway, that would make me a classical liberal hypocrite, not a classic liberal hypocrite.
When... you... feel... that... something... non-economic... is... worse... for... poor... people... than... for... non-poor... people... then... you... are... using... Socialist... class... envy. The details are irrelevant.
That is a nonsensical and thoroughly innaccurate description of Marxist doctrine. One doesn't have to be a fully paid-up commie to realize that the possession of wealth helps one ride through crises intact. By your rationale there would be no point in putting aside reserves to safeguard against recessions and the possiblity of unemployment. I can't believe I have actually needed to explain this.
Having an eight-digit bank account won't help you when the explosions are ripping up the foundation of your mansion.
Quite true. But it will definitely be quite useful when a neighbor's mansion goes up in smoke and you decide it's time to get the heck out of dodge. Walking for miles in freezing desert with no food is something not many of us in the West would have to do. I very much doubt that Afghan charities (hah!) have quite matched the $500M+ raised by the Red Cross etc either.
Or are you pathetic enough to think that Afghanistan's poverty exempts them from warfare, and that the United States should only take military action against those with a GDP above 'acceptable' limits, set by the UN perhaps? Exactly how Socialist are you without even realizing it?
I was merely pointing out one of the many reasons why the effects of the war are particularly harsh. I oppose all non-defensive warfare, regardless of the GDP of the nation being attacked. However, wars that are likely to kill millions of civilians as opposed to hundreds are more of a concern.
Regarding being a socialist, I am not sure that is possible to be one of those at the same time as being a radical capitalist. I am the latter. My heroes are Mises and Rothbard, not Marx and Engels. Anyway, you have yet again demonstrated your utter misunderstanding of commie doctrine. A socialist foreign policy (if there is such a thing) would call for billions of dollars in aid for poor countries.
I'll try one last time, then I'm done with you: "Wealth level should NEVER determine how to behave in a certain situation."
You are arguing with a straw man. I never said it should determine behavior. If a judge mentions the mowed-down pregnant woman when summing up a drunk-driving conviction, should this be interpreted as an endorsement of getting boozed-up and mowing down men and childless women?
I can't believe it either... please re-read the part where I wrote very... slowly... using... small... words (post 48, so you can find it). I wrote that using economic strata in "non-economic" decisions was utilizing Socialist class envy. You come back with two ECONOMIC reasons for making ECONOMIC decisions, and then you act incredulous? C'mon, you can do better than that.
I never said it should determine behavior.
Wrong again. Are you reduced to lying now, or can't you even read your own posts?
Post #31: "However, the poverty of the Afghans is absolutely relevant because it means that attacks on them are all the more devastating."
You explicitly state that their poverty is relevant to the decision-making process regarding our bombing the poor nation of Afghanistan. That would fall into the category "determining behavior."