The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.

▲

cyberjerkXX 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All human relationships have inequalities. Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian bullshit. It always leads to worse outcomes than intendent because humans are imperfect. Intentions should never be the measure of success, only outcomes.

	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 17 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian yes, "destroy hierarchies" is utopian. But that's a complete straw man version of "reduce very high levels of inequality that have highly visible political impacts".
	▲	watwut 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Those hierarchies are the result and consequence of goverment being captured by super rich. Removing it and weakening sociopathic predators is correct. They will cauase less damage when they are not constantly given advantages.

▲

logicchains 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

The only agency it reduces is the agency for people to make decisions about what should be done with other people's wealth. Which is not a productive agency for them to have as they've got an incredible conflict of interest to just waste it on themselves.

	▲	simianwords 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have changed my opinions on this. Land reform initiatives have been carried out globally at different points and it has been seen as broadly useful and necessary. Why? Medial and pre-medieval times, debt cancellation was also broadly necessary and done. Why?