Here is an in depth economic analysis which shows that college graduates fared worse than the rest of the older population, and that unemployment is cyclical, not structural. Meaning the unemployment is not a result of a mismatch of skill sets or being in the wrong geographical location, but directly a result of the bad economy caused by the recession.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-09.html

This is the root of the moral contamination that has warped our values since the days of John Locke: this notion that private property is the most unalienable right that we can have as humans. This notion is counterintuitive to psychology, and counterintuitive to all moral systems, even those invented in the days of the utilitarians and early capitalists.

It is the right of all humans to meet certain minimums of welfare. Food, shelter, employment, and health. These should be guaranteed to all people before we allow anyone to have anything more. That is solidarity, that is morality. This belief otherwise is perverse.

No, our inalienable rights are the rights given to us as part of our humanity, they're our natural rights, or "god-given rights". We have the right to form our own opinions, and our right to express them, because our minds are our own, as are our hands and mouths, which we use to communicate. The fundamental difference between these rights, and the ones you classify are rights, is that natural rights do not cost anything: the Government does not need to spend money to give me the freedom of speech.

Property rights are an extension of our natural rights. We obtain property by exchanging our services with others. Ultimately, all property is created by our minds, and by our hands. When I make something with my mind, and my hands, that thing is mine. I can voluntarily exchange the efforts of my mind and hands, if I so wish, but I cannot be forced to. That would be slavery.

Now, you may argue that the Government's role is to provide more than our rights. You may contend that, on top of our rights, the Government should also provide us with healthcare, and those less fortunate with food, or shelter. I would disagree with you there, but accept your opinion, as that is your view on what the Government should do. It is a false premise, though, to suggest that those things are rights.

Nature is cruel and arbitrary. We are thinking creatures, rational creatures. We have our minimal dignity and should respect the dignity of other rational creatures. Dignity includes the fulfillment of our natural needs, which includes the items i have mentioned. We have a right to work (and not in the twisted anti-union use of the prhase in America), a right to sufficient food and shelter, and a right to be healthy insofar as we are able to be.

Slavery is a depravation of these dignities, but the association of all people to provide the fruits of their labor to all other people in a bonded governmental system predicated upon mutual consent insures dignity and optimum happiness for all, and this system does not preclude the achievement of greater material goods (or even a prosperous material society), while neither depriving any human of their dignity.

Nobody is entitled to dignity. Namely because dignity is not objective. What you may qualify as living a life of dignity, I may not. Similarly, different cultures have  vastly different ideas of what constitute dignity. Dignity is something that is self-achieved, I know lots of people who rely on handouts for certain things, and they certainly feel a loss of honour over the matter.

Slavery is not a depravation of dignity, but a depravation of rights. Taken to the extreme, an actual slave is a person who has been taken into ownership. He lacks the ability to refuse to work, and thus, has lost control over his body, his humanity. A slave may still be provided with all those things that you think are required for a dignified life - food, shelter, etc (maybe lacking healthcare, but it was known that some slave owners did treat their slaves well), but they are still slaves.

What is the difference between the slave owners of early America, and those who are slaves through the state in extreme socialism? In both cases, people lost their right to refuse work, their rights to form their own mind, ultimately, their liberty. But both were provided with the "necessities" of life. Now, I understand that you (hopefully) aren't advocating full-on communism, just a "safety net", so a degree of socialism. But, with that, means that you are arguing for a degree of enslavement.

No i'm not advocating full-scale Communism, because its implementation is unrealistic (though i would argue that if properly responsible stewards for the proletarian dictatorship period could be found and the threat of interference from anti-communist forces could be eliminated, a properly anarcho-communistic system could function), but in returning to the point, freedom of choice and speech are also part of that dignity that we possess as rational individuals, but we cannot realistically exercise our abilities unless we are provided for.

Freedom needs first individuals who can function as free individuals, and i would maintain that history has reflected that. If you grant the liberties of natural rights to an undeveloped society, one where needs are not met, they will end up voiding those rights, whereas if effort is made to provide these standards for all, institutions preserving freedom and dignity will be bred in a positively self-reinforcing system, so long as society does not begin to re-emphasize material greed as a desirable end in and of itself (as we did back in the Reagan years)

You probably already know this, but for those who don't... Scientific Socialism is what Marx used to define his socialism from that which existed before him.

The revolution part seems redudnent though... since Marx argued utopian socialists focused there message at the rulers and not the proletriate in an attempt to convince them to change to their view based on the logic of their system and by running test communes to show such a society could work.

VS marx who wanted outright polticial revolution right away, expierments be damned.  Which always made "Scientific Socialism" seem pretty funny to me.   Though "Untested rushed socialism" doesn't really have the same ring to it.

No no no, Marx did not want revolution right away. Indeed Marx's personal role during the 1848 revolutions in Europe was telling working class individuals in the Rhineland that "now is not your time, now is the time of the Liberal Bourgeoisie. Help them now against the Junkers/aristocrats, and your time will come." He felt revolution needed to occur at the maturation of capitalism, which he realized after the 1848 revolutions was still a ways off, though he still looked to it in his lifetime at the time.

It was the Russian Michael Bakunin (as well as the Frenchman Louis Blanqui) who said "Revolution now and figure the rest out later." Lenin, in turn, believed less in the notion that capitalism needed to mature and more to the idea that the proletariat could ally itself with the peasantry (as was needed for any Russian revolution to be successful)

Leader?  I nominate Jesus.

I am sure one will see a link between product marketing and religious worship, complete with individuals who evangelize for each.  Replace religious symbols with brands, and you are all set.  I was thinking of coming up with a "words to live by" book completely made up of corporate slogans ("Save money, live better", "Think different", etc...).  

No one said the religious devotion side of the brain is logical at all.  Anyhow, need to paraphrase your last line a bit to make it flow a bit better, because it is really cool.