Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.
If you're getting what you're worth, what does it matter if someone else who invented the miracle super-widget desired by every man, woman and child on the planet gets paid the fortune that he earns? Wealth inequality is only unjust if it is a result of force.
Again, this is a very clever thing to say, but it makes a lot of assumptions.
Value is a variable thing, changing with conditions. However, just like a river there becomes a point at which the bight becomes too excessive and force becomes assumed. Again, in the case of the Pullman strike (perfect example), no one forced the people to work at the company. . . they simply needed jobs, as to afford food/ shelter. The company then paid them according to the cost of company housing, however when the companies margins started to shrink they paid the workers less, but kept the cost of rent in company houses the same.
This wasn't intentionally forced, especially in the beginning, but as the power dynamic shifted the workers were eventually forced to deal with unsustainable conditions. This is something that happened countless times during that period, and is exactly how our worker protection programs developed.
We are looking at the same thing now, where several multinational companies have bought up essentially everything (from food, to media) and are squeezing the general population. It's even reached the point where these companies actually have the ability to determine national elections, especially where a candidate needs to have commercial air time to even dream of being elected.
Look at the 2012 election, both the corporate sponsored candidates received massive amounts of air time and as a result swept the election. Gary Johnson, an extremely viable candidate was not given the air time due to a lack of corporate sponsorship and therefore received less than 2 million votes.
Currently people won't vote for someone who isn't on television all the time, because they refuse to do research. Multinational companies take advantage of this and push their sponsored candidates, to the exclusion of anyone else.
It's a self perpetuating cycle, which will break eventually.
You work and your neighbor doesn't. You get rich and he doesn't. No matter how much more wealth you create than your neighbor it is not unjust. It would be unjust if your neighbor was, by some force of law, not permitted to create his own wealth but that's not the case here. So why does any extent of wealth inequality become unjust? I find the hope diamond. How much of my wealth is unjust?
Except, for many effort isn't a question. Getting ahead of covering basic needs simply isn't going to happen. The free market has worked itself into a place where the overwhelming majority of people are stuck, like indentured servants. Sure some can break free, but that requires lots of luck.
Eventually the free market will work itself out, happened in France. Hopefully we won't get to that point here though, that's what the management of the system is for.
