Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

Guessing: a defense needs to establish reasonable doubt, not an airtight theory of the case.

Well, the issue is of course that all wealth is relative. There is no absolute level of poverty except in death. The issue is, for both yourself and the previous post, where you draw the line.

Hunger, health, contentment, education, or self actualisation?

There is another level to this argument that is central to the reason why this inequality thing gets so much airtime (even though people, with views similar to what you have stated, don't see the problem). That is the secondary effects. At a certain level, the wealthy start to get a significant benefit just from being wealthy. They get to direct legislation to benefit further, they start to see themselves as deserving of their wealth, and their vice and their role. They start to see themselves as kings and the poor as a lesser kind of human (and historically as inhuman).

This is the biggest reason for equality. If you can solve the proclivity of wealthy people toward self interest and dehumanisation of their fellow human, then by all means get as rich as you please.

The problem is that human society does not seem to work very well like that. Either humans seem to think they have to do it themselves, or they think the state is fully responsible for them. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground, and yet, either extreme is totally unlivable.

> This is the biggest reason for equality.

I would argue that by far the biggest reason people aren't equal is that people ... aren't born equal, and yes, it does "run in families" (that's the whole point of evolution of course). Perhaps this is not so much a reason for the day to day differences in their lives, but it is the root cause behind those differences.

People are inherently different, both from a physical point of view (good health runs in families, in both the poor and the rich), and from a cultural point of view (there's a reason people are rich, and of course they raise their children to have that same property, to think the same way). Same with poor. For many there's a reason they are poor and they teach their children to, say, hate entrepreneurship, investment and risk (man, there's a LOT of that in Western Europe).

The issue is twofold. You cannot fix ineqality by rewarding the poor. That works for a few of them, but not for many. That works for rich people that are in danger of falling out of the rich category, helps them get back in, but it doesn't lift many poor out of poverty.

That leaves the other tactic. You can fix inequality by punishing, obstructing and outright attacking the rich/smart/powerful/... But of course that is done by actual people. Those people, whether in the Soviet Union, China, or indeed France (during the revolution), invariably judge themselves to be better than the plebs and start using those punishments and that power that they have to guarantee themselves a very high social position. I would argue that currently Erdogan and Putin are (very imperfect) examples of this in action. Furthermore, this destroys societies.

The problem with "justice" is that it doesn't exist. People will always have to be in place to judge (and no, they're not judges) which situations are just and which aren't. And people ... lie, cheat, ...

From an individual's perspective it's never directly for their own advantage. Of course people that work within the state to create equality need to use their power to guarantee their power stays, for of course their mission of eliminating inequality will fail if they fail to protect themselves. So they use that power to attack personal threats, or threats against the political status-quo. In many cases, that's sort of defensible, because they would indeed fail if they hadn't. If the communists get voted out in China, their mission, their dream for China will fail. Of course, in that case that's exactly what the population wants to achieve by voting them out, but it will still fail.

TLDR. equality sucks. You cannot lift everyone up to wealth and high society. You can only push everyone down, destroying everything in the process.

> This is the biggest reason for equality.

Sorry, that was very poorly worded in retrospect. What I meant was this is the biggest reason for trying to keep inequality in check. Because to abandon keeping it in check is to accept (at some point in the future) being a slave to the god overlords.

Just because.. human nature.. does not mean you cannot individually, and as a society, try for something a little more stable and productive. As I said, it depends where you draw the line, everything is a grey area. There are real dangers to inequality, just as there are dangers, as you point out, to forced equality. And yes, you can fix inequality by re-distributing wealth back to the poor. That is the fucking point. But it brings up other problems of its own doing. Imagine though if this fix is not absolute, just about degree. And perhaps a small one just to keep the power balanced between the rich and the masses, and the corporate and the political. Perhaps it needs to swing back and forth occasionally to prevent a monoculture. And really, if someone does not agree with you on precisely where that line is, doesn't mean they are automatically some kind of dystopian socialist. Most people largely agree with each other on most things in principle, just not in implementation.

I mean I fully agree with some of your points, even your main point that equality sucks (which is not to dissimilar from mine), but then who wouldn't? Your comment just contains so many wild projections it is hard not to be incensed. Not one sane person ever has ever suggested to lift everyone up to wealth and high society. I think your wording also betrays your prejudices... "there's a reason they are poor", "rewarding the poor." Seriously, where do you think wealth comes from? This is exactly the problem I was describing. People with wealth believe they deserve the wealth they have (and sometimes a little more), so of course it follows that the poor do not, otherwise they would have some more.

Anyway, I give you the benefit of doubt, that line of mine was poorly worded (but still quite clear I think). But I really find it quite annoying that everyone constantly evaluates other peoples arguments by starting from the assumption the other is wrong and then making up all the straw arguments to suit their own point of view.

This should explain why: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's.