[golergka]

> In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth.

In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat.

So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it.

> The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want

Nobody can have as much as they "want" - but everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.

[qntty]

> In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat.

> So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it.

Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction.

> everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange.

Any state that protects the property of wealthy people through violence can surely also put obligations on those people. In exchange for the state's violence, they must support a social safety net which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity.

The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).

[golergka]

> Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction.

But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way. It is not. On the opposite, these completely virtual notions of money and finance helped achieve modern-day prosperity that humanity enjoys.

So, yes, it is artificial, which makes it good.

> which gives the people who wealthy people are being protected from basic human necessities and dignity

So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more?

> The state who gives an artificially constructed right to wealthy people (the institution of private property) can also give an artificially constructed right to poor people (basic needs and dignity).

First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given to all, equally. And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not.

[qntty]

> But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way.

I'm not saying property is bad nor am I making a value judgement about it. I'm saying is that it's a concept created by the state.

> So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more?

You're begging the question. There's no such thing as "looters" prior to the concept of property.

> First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given to all, equally.

Sure, just as basic necessities like education, food and housing should be.

> And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not.

Again, not at all clear how you're making a moral judgement about this issue prior to the creation of the concept of property. Yes, stealing is wrong, but in order to steal something it has to belong to someone first. If we're trying to figure out what should belong to who, it's silly to come into the discussion by simply insisting that stealing is wrong.

I could just as easily say that the wealth of a society belongs to everyone prior to it's distribution. Why then should rich people be entitled to steal it from poor people? Stealing is wrong, remember.