I think one of the arguments that LR is making is that people being wealthy is a bad thing, as it is inefficient use of resources (compared to everyone accessing shared wealth).
I've been trying to get him to voice that. So he can see it is just the rich he dislikes. Then show how natural it is, and how we dont need resources distributed equally.
Or at the very least that we can mold ourself to our better nature over time, but it requires that we re-educate or at least dethrone the cause of it; the corrupting capitalists.
I do not think that something being natural is an argument for LR, the assumption is that what we think is natural is what we have been brainwashed to think is natural.
I would then point to nature, and how the way wealth is distributed is how most things in nature are distributed. It's nice to poke holes in the brainwashing theory.
So I should make the distinction: What is commonplace in nature is not what is natural for humans, we can attain something greater than nature by working together against capitalists.
I would argue that capitalism is what allow us to attain something greater than nature.
That said I think we shouldn't dismiss what we find in nature.
You can make an correct factual descriptive statement about the universality of pareto distributions but that does not counteract a view that is normative about how things ought to be.
Very true. Logic has no real connection between is and ought.
