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.
