Oh boy, this jumps around a lot and very little is very deep so my answers will have to jump around a bit to make sure I didn't miss anything.
> Are you asking why, in a system that its supporters claim is a meritocracy,
who's made these assertions, and where? Not anywhere in the thread's I've read...
> it wrong for it to be easier for the rich to get richer than for the poor to achieve parity, given equal merit?
Is it wrong though? Should everything be equally as hard? Or is it permissible that some things should be harder than others. And where/how do I draw the lines to know when it's unfair?
> Is that a rhetorical question,
It was, I even said as much. I'd ready to agree, but I can't until you actually make a conclusion.
> or are you about to argue in favor of the ethics of feudalism? Because bridging that ethical divide would take more than a simple hacker news comment.
I'm not trying to argue anything, I'd like like try and tease out arguments worth considering.
> edit: Ah, to more directly address you point earlier, and lay it out in simple ethical terms: withholding essential goods (housing) from others is a moral wrong according to consequentialist ethics systems.
Perhaps, but this evaluation is shallow enough to be useless for me to apply in the reality in which I live. What about the consequence of destruction of value from freely allowing anyone without an interest from living off your property? But they might die, and life is more important than money? Sure, but what about in an area where they wouldn't die, then is it moral? But people deserve to be comfortable! So do I need to provide heat and water, and other utilities? To what extent? Any conclusion that adds more questions than answers is useless. Ethics aren't scientific research, answers that only create more questions aren't useful...
> Doing things with a motivation of greed (profit) is also considered a moral wrong in intent-based ethics systems.
This is new to me, I assumed it was amoral. What makes it immoral?
> The agreed upon axiom that they contribute nothing in return means there is no moral good to outweigh the moral wrong in either system, so in combination it is a net moral wrong.
So there is an example where the net morality could come out in the positive?
> This really shouldn't need to be spelled out.
And... we're back the the original problem that I tried to call out from the beginning. Anyone that doesn't already know what you know, and preemptively agree with you is the problem? Now who's arguing for feudalism if you don't already have knowledge and power, you're undeserving?