[argentinian]

There's poverty without inequality. In some primitive tribes everyone was poor. When natural adverse conditions hit some regions, also poverty was widespread.

That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system. I don't think you would consider equal and just that every person could influence justice. The problem is the justice system.

[59percentmore]

If everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance.

>That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system

It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense as those doing the wrong, at which point righteousness should prevail.

[argentinian]

You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition.

Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money: e.g advantageous connections with others, deception, etc. There's corruption among poor people, and rich people also steal from other rich people.

An utopic idea of equality blocks the capacity of observing how things work.

[59percentmore]

>You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition.

He says, without citation.

>Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money

No one says that wealth equality leads to an absolutely equal society; that's a straw man. What is incontrovertibly true, and empirically proven to be so, is that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are less unequal socially, and see fewer negative outcomes that can be attributed to any disparity that does exist, wealth or otherwise. This is because we are talking about effects directly downstream of resource allocation, and monetary wealth is the primary way resources are denominated. Maybe if commodities were priced directly in Twitter follower count or bench press, you'd have a point.

The poor and rich are not equally corrupt (again, something shown empirically).

[argentinian]

Dictionaries are easily available.

> The poor and rich are not equally corrupt

He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people.

[59percentmore]

>Dictionaries are easily available.

You should use one.

>He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people.

It is a structural impossibility for a poor person to be as absolutely corrupt from an extrinsic viewpoint as a rich person, as much as it is a physical impossibility for an ant to be as absolutely strong as a bear. You're conflating some measure of (subjective) inner morality with actual effects in the real world.

Happy World Cup.

[argentinian]

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good.

In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich.

As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people