[ashark]

The structures necessary to support crazy-high incomes in the modern world are governmental creations of exactly that sort. If we stick to a by-the- and for-the-people kind of ethos, then adjusting how the government manages all this stuff it's creating on their behalf in order to increase the prosperity of the lower classes at some cost to the higher is entirely sensible and just. If inequality additionally means less-equal outcomes in the justice system and lower systemic stability then even more so, on both counts.

Alternatives include: abandoning that ethos and embracing Rule of the (economically) Strongest; or strictly sticking to a government that doesn't engage in that stuff at all and living with the fallout (until every sensible state re-organized under a new federal government that did that stuff again, and/or sought annexation). We do an awful lot of the former, in practice.

[ameister14]

> If we stick to a by-the- and for-the-people kind of ethos, then adjusting how the government manages all this stuff it's creating on their behalf in order to increase the prosperity of the lower classes at some cost to the higher is entirely sensible and just.

That kinda flies in the face of one of the main purposes of society I pointed out, though - protection of property. I'm not saying it's wrong, though.

You mention 'if inequality additionally...' that doesn't mean inequality is bad on its own merits. Do you believe inequality is bad on its own merits?

While those two you listed are alternatives, they are not the only alternatives. Hell, you didn't even point out the 'we can do nothing and keep things as they are' option.

[ashark]

> That kinda flies in the face of one of the main purposes of society I pointed out, though - protection of property. I'm not saying it's wrong, though.

When you're protecting property that only exists because we all agreed to have a certain kind of system, adjusting the rules of that system to suit the desires of "we all" so the prosperity (or property) said system creates is distributed slightly differently isn't exactly a failure to protect property.

> You mention 'if inequality additionally...' that doesn't mean inequality is bad on its own merits. Do you believe inequality is bad on its own merits?

Since the things that wealth gains a person (material, influence, opportunity, psychological/ego support, health, and so on) are the entire reason anyone cares about wealth and not meaningful separable from "its own merits", of course.

> While those two you listed are alternatives, they are not the only alternatives. Hell, you didn't even point out the 'we can do nothing and keep things as they are' option.

We largely willfully ignore (it's someone's will, anyway) that our political system includes the rules that allow our economy to prosper as it does, and that those rules ought to be there to serve us all, since we all have a say in them and they exist for us—if we hold as important the ideal of a government by and for the people. So again, I think we effectively abandon that sphere of public policy to the wealthy under propaganda that makes many believe it's immoral to change the rules of government to suit one's needs or wants when those changes happen to disadvantage the rich in any way. In such a case the modifications are said to constitute class war (boo!) and stealing (boo!) and are just so unfair (boo!). A position which might hold if our government weren't responsible for the edifice that allowed such wealth to accumulate to begin with, and I don't remotely just mean protecting property—so if we want to get rid of all that stuff and its benefits, then maybe there's an argument for making addressing inequality beyond the proper scope of government.

[ameister14]

>When you're protecting property that only exists because we all agreed to have a certain kind of system, adjusting the rules of that system to suit the desires of "we all" so the prosperity (or property) said system creates is distributed slightly differently isn't exactly a failure to protect property.

Yes, yes it is. If it was voluntary, it wouldn't be, but what you're talking about is involuntary transfer of property from A->B.

>Since the things that wealth gains a person (material, influence, opportunity, psychological/ego support, health, and so on) are the entire reason anyone cares about wealth and not meaningful separable from "its own merits", of course.

So influence, opportunities and health are all negatives? I don't think I am understanding you.