[unbannable]

People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.

It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy.

The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.

[ryanwaggoner]

Yeah, it's not that simple. That's my whole point.

Also, can you provide some objective basis for the statement that talent should trade very high against "property"?

[unbannable]

Those who want talent to trade highly against property are those who believe the best and most capable should be making the big decisions. They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.

Those who want the reverse are those who have power but lack talent, and their supporters.

[anamax]

How do you determine "best and most capable"?

One way to do so is to let people trade their talent for property that they use as they see fit. If they're good and not just lucky, they'll succeed again, getting more property over which to make decisions.

However, that method seems to be in conflict with "talent should trade highly against property".

> They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.

That's bullshit on stilts.

[netsp]

Should?