> as all human beings should be cared for under modern society
Why on earth would you conclude that? What's wrong with Darwinian processes? Why must people be protected from the cost of their own misfortune, failure or inadequacy? Why must this cost be born by others?
Basically that people cannot be expected to accept their own fates with dignity? I would make the case that overwhelming violence is an appropriate consequence for violating the peace. Good policing techniques are very effective in maintaining social order, in spite of economic inequality - see Japan.
Why do you think the only weak people that deserve protection are the wealthy? The idea that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the status quo is strange, and in a world where everything is assigned an owner is a maxarchism not a minarchism.
In a real Darwinian world, rich people wouldn't be able to walk the streets without a huge amount of security, and eventually that security force would kill them, take what they have, and pass it to their children. The idea that the people who own everything are the intellectual and physical champions of the world is a version of the efficient market hypothesis within a idealized police state whose only duty is to keep these people from falling to their level. It's really just a neofeudalism that will result in neohapsburg lips in 100 years and infant kings.
I'm saying that "society" is basically an agreement to peacefully coexist, using due process to resolve disputes. It's not an agreement to cooperate. Just because the processes by which some some succeed and some fail are non-violent doesn't mean that those successes and failures shouldn't be total.
> people who own everything are the intellectual and physical champions
They're not, and I never said they were. All I said was that if they acquired their wealth through legitimate means (ie without the use of force), then they are entitled to keep all of it and do with it what they please.
Say we live in a society with 10 people, each with one dollar. Now say one member of this society invents something useful and sells it to the other nine for 75¢. The wealth gap in this society will have grown dramatically. What exactly entitles the other nine to any of their money back? What does it matter how the entrepreneur spends his money?
Since two other commenters answered your question, I’d like to add to your 10 person society example.
What if a government taxed every one of their transactions by 25%, spent or redistributed 80% of those dollars within the society, and uncharitably donated 20% of all dollars away to another society. How long would it take for that society to have a rounded $0 and the other society to have a rounded $10?
> What does it matter how the entrepreneur spends his money?
Lets take your scenario one step further. The entrepreneur now uses his newly gotten weatlh, buys up some neccessary infrastructure that everyone relies on (for sake of argument lets the food supply) and raises the price to 26ct, everyone in the society but him starves to death and no violence was used. At what point, if any, should a hypothetical state step in?
Nowhere? If you sell your only milk-giving cow, don't be surprised if the prices of milk increases. You're using "buys up" like the people selling had no choice. They have plenty of choices: they can refuse to sell, they can refuse to cooperate with the new owner, they can go and build new infrastructure. Ultimately, a property owner is not a monarch, and can't force anyone to do anything. These techniques have been used in to remarkable effect in the past to peacefully compel good behavior. See Charles Cunningham Boycott or Mahatma Gandhi.
Why on earth would you conclude that? What's wrong with Darwinian processes? Why must people be protected from the cost of their own misfortune, failure or inadequacy? Why must this cost be born by others?