> Well let me be the devil's advocate here and ask why.
because there's civil unrest otherwise.
because there's civil unrest otherwise.
I'm playing devil's advocate, but indeed there are those who agree with that statement. Who gets to decide which is right?
Maybe you saw another post?
The question is why would you prefer there being civil unrest to there not being civil unrest?
And if you prefer the latter why would you not exercise whatever power you have to realize your preference?
The phrase "civil unrest" is far too tame; it doesn't even begin to conjure the horrors that people are capable of when they get angry enough.
Anyway, if death is the price you have to pay for living a life true to yourself, in accordance with your values, in accordance with what you think is right and not what you think will appease some hypothetical angry mob, then so be it. Surely it's better to live a short life true to what you believe, than a slightly longer life lacking any sense of integrity.
And that's why pure self interest is something to be avoided even by people who only care about themselves.
Some elites might imagine that they can remain on top forever, unaffected by the violence and oppression they inflict on others. History suggests otherwise.
We even had the cycle of elite-formation and power-accumulation into civil unrest and collapse happen in the Soviet union, which was literally engineered to prevent this exact thing from happening, complete with profound socialist indoctrination of the population. They weren't supposed to be self-interested, yet when it came down to it, they were.
Overall I'm fairly skeptical toward the notion that societies can be designed at all, to a meaningful degree.
What fundamentally shapes the human societies is human nature which is self-interested and largely immutable. You can try to force it, to artificially make societies that contradict human nature through the imposition of rules, but that's if anything even more volatile, because that makes all their citizens unhappy, like animals in a zoo.
As you said: the "cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown...sucks for those involved".
Having acknowledged that it sucks, why not try to improve it?
The problem is that while you can convince someone briefly that your new utopia is a good idea, as the years go by, people start having other ideas, they start wanting things. Self-interest never really went away. So you need to stop them from thinking wrong and wanting the wrong things and having the wrong ideas, and the only way to do that is through oppressive totalitarianism.
Human institutions ossify and start to serve the ends of their own power accumulation, no matter how noble their initial ideals and goals were.
> If you have the benefit of this inequality, you should use it to ensure the availability of life’s necessities
That's an individual decision, not an oppressive dystopian institution.
In fact, one way we could start working on reducing inequality is to reduce the oppressive dystopian elements of our current institutions.
And toward that end, we should note that any elite privileges you may enjoy ultimately rest on the ability to call on the government to use force on your behalf.
My personal worldview is quiet bleak and I'm very glad to already be in the middle of my thirties, because I struggle to find a reason which would matter to them.
I don't think there is any chance we'll avoid mass murder on the average people at this point, and I doubt the average software developer will escape unharmed either long term. Hopefully after I'm dead though.
If you imagine a scale from [0, 1] where 0 is no redistributive mechanisms at all and 1 is perfect, daily rebalancing to exact equality of outcome, it's fairly obvious to me that neither extreme of 0 nor 1 is "the very idea of goodness itself".
Civil unrest led to women's suffrage, racial equality, and countless other things that are indeed good. Good things sometimes come from bad situations.
There's very little to support your argument that "Why can't there just be civil unrest?" is arguing against the idea of goodness itself.
When you think about that, there is no way declared to be free markets are actually free.