| > As we can agree that inequality is natural, the burden of proof is on you to prove that any particular inequality is unjustifiable. I accept no such burden. Since the ideal world would have plenitude for all, anything that takes us away from such a world must be justified. And 'nature' is not a justification. Disease is natural, but we don't have to justify trying to cure disease. > A person can give their property to anybody they please, we can and we do tax such transactions, but it perpetuates wealth across generations, it does not constitute an unnatural or unjust inequality. Unlike what some modern libertarians may believe, the right to property is not necessarily fundamental. There are perfectly coherent moral systems that do not value the right to property very highly at all. As such, the right to transfer your wealth to your children may be severely diminished, if it is important for more important ideals. > If you took two random people from the worlds population, you have no reason at all to believe their motivations, or the choices they made in life would have much in common at all. Sure, choices can vary a lot between individuals. But society as a whole can work to ensure that outcomes are not vastly different. For example, it should not be possible to starve in a wealthy country because of poor choices. It should not be possible to be homeless in a wealthy country because of poor choices. It should not be possible to be denied medical care in a wealthy country because of poor choices. And it should also not be possible to have more influence over the country's policy than 99.9% percent of the population because of good choices. Especially when those good choices were made by you grandfather. |