Sorry, I'm not sure if you're replying to someone else - I didn't mention socialised healthcare or communism.

> the idea of sharing society’s abundance with everyone is clearly possible

This is what I was replying to. I'm saying that discovery comes with "inequality" in some sense, because it takes time to distribute and refine processes for making things. Only rich people 100 years ago could afford what would now be classed as the worst cars in the world. Now almost anyone can buy a car, at least in developed nations. But you don't need to think of it as "sharing", but rather as "markets". Goods and services that are worth scaling, and can be scaled, will be.

Sorry, the assumption that sharing somehow precludes variety or innovation just felt inspired by some misunderstanding of communism, which is a very common trope in America.

> I'm saying that discovery comes with "inequality" in some sense, because it takes time to distribute and refine processes for making things.

Again, read the original source. Inequality and discovery isn't in opposition with sharing. Inequality in outcome and opportunities are very different.

All of human society produces enough food, and enough excess wealth, that we could "solve" hunger across the planet if we chose. That wouldn't require everyone eat the same meal, and it wouldn't preclude people going to restaurants or spending money on Michelin-Star meals. This wouldn't even prevent market-driven opportunities for farmers or chefs or distributors. Not everyone in the planet can be entitled to rare fish flown across the world, but for example, America has so much corn we put in our gasoline (and offered plenty of tax credits to do so).