[holograham]

You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention.

The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world?

Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" regulations (e.g. welfare programs). The ultimate problem with this approach is people will rarely agree on what is fair. There is no set definition and wants/desires change over time -- even needs do to (like needing a cell phone now vs 20 years ago). This ever evolving definition of fairness is what ensures this debate will rage on indefinitely.

[chongli]

You are conflating fairness vs. justice.

There's an entire philosophy based on the work of John Rawls [0] that codifies the conflation of these ideas [1]. It's not at all a simple matter to strive for justice in an unfair world. Some libertarian folks elsewhere in this discussion have brought up the idea that taxes are theft. On the opposite end of that spectrum, I've heard it argued that property rights are a form of violence. What does it mean for the rights of an individual if, in a hypothetical future, all arable land is owned, fenced off, tended by drones, and guarded with extreme prejudice? A Mad Max-style dystopia sprinkled with little walled gardens.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness