The model is absolutely accurate. Some of your questions are answered by studying the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Understand, there was a great deal of debate over whether or not the Bill of Rights was actually necessary, since the government powers were spelled out quite well in the Constitution. Our constitution does not actually give people freedom, it limits government. So you have a bit of a point when you go beyond the Bill of Rights, in regards to the Amendments. In the US, the DOI is what defines who is free here (everyone), where that freedom comes from (God), meaning that no person or man may establish him or herself above another. In terms of your concerns about how the US treats other countries, well I'm a veteran so I most likely have a more accurate, first hand account of how some of this works. That being said, the US, along with many other countries are guilty of bullying...and I do not support this. Living wage has nothing to do with government. Correction...should have nothing to do with government. You are conditioned to the socialist economic views, those ideas of Keynes, where government should intervene in economic activity. This interferes with the basic concepts of supply and demand, as does monetary policy by the fed. I would encourage you to study Austrian economics to get a clearer understanding of what I'm referring to. Econ is a favorite subject of mine, however it is also quite complex, so I really can't sum the theory up here. If you've studied Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, then human nature is tied to capitalism. At some point, we all become selfish, even amongst those who are most charitable, because the act of charity provides them with something. So if the ability to help was taken from them, they would suffer loss. Perhaps not monetary, but in how they like to live their lives. Again I could go on for quite some time philosophizing about how is nothing but a means to providing a certain lifestyle, who's goals are set by each individual. The bottom line is it isn't my right or anyone else's to define what someone else should have or not have. It is my life, it's your life. Hopefully we will put more into our world then we take out of it, but it should be our decision on whether or not to do this. Thanks for the reply!

@Litespeedshane Thanks for the reply.
I will look up the things you mentioned. I value discussion between left snd right.

I worry some more right wing people overlook the changes socialist and workers rights partys brought to the table. My knowledge is very UK centric. If it wasnt for them I'd have to work 18 hours a day and be a bloke. I wouldnt have been able to go to school either. If it wasnt for the 1860 reforms pushed by socialists, the working class wouldnt be able to vote. And I wouldnt have had the NHS to treat my childhood epilepsy.

I also think many muddle economics with authoritarianism and dictarships. Marx himself said his issue with the application and required the mutual agreement of all parties and could be easily abused or if their was the state or individual in charge of wealth distribution judt decided to.
But then the same can be said of capitalism. So I guess here we are

I guess really American constitution is after the same things as socialism in that a persons acheivements shouldnt be limited by upbringing and finicial standing. But the methods are different.