Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poverty in this context is the lack of financial mobility within a given economic body. If some people starve while others don't because they can't afford the food, that's a socially instituted poverty. Starvation that is equally suffered because there IS no food isn't the kind of poverty being discussed in the article. It's a lack of necessary resources suffered equally independent of financial mobility. We can argu…
This is a silly distinction. All things being equal most would probably prefer the poverty in modern day America to the "Equal" poverty of preindustrial experience. The real reason people get upset about modern poverty is because it's an example of inequality. So sure, let's try to ameliorate and address inequality where possible. But under no circumstances should we try to do so by reducing total progress and wealth…
Sure, a tiny pie divided equally is inferior to a large pie divided unequally but so that everybody gets a much larger piece.
But that's not absolute. Inequality has significant moral and psychological effects, so yes it is worth shrinking the pie slightly if that's what is required to divide it up more equally.
It's a balance - strive for both progress and fairness, not for one at the expense of the other.