Good comment. If more people understood the distribution of wealth was largely the result of natural laws of productivity (described by the Pareto Principle), and not just the result of corruption, exploiting externalities, etc, there would be much less resentment and envy towards the top 1%. Perhaps then we could focus on some solutions that don't make the 1% want to flee to a more free country, taking their productivity and wealth with them.
The really tricky part is identifying how much is due to fundamental dynamics and how much is due to unjust anachronisms. For that, I don't have a good answer.
I believe there is plenty of room for us make improvements, and that we have a responsibility to do so.
You may have missed a change I made to my comment, also. We aren't completely beholden to the Pareto principle. We can work against it to a certain degree, if we choose, which would lessen inequality, with tolerable side effects.
I'm not sure it matters what part is due to fundamental dynamics. The goal should be to add a feedback loop from the top to lower levels so as to improve mobility dynamics, which encourages the view that hard work and ingenuity pays off with decent probability.
Well, fundamental dynamics are likely harder to counteract than some of the human factors which may be a bit more arbitrary and anachronistic. Not that this is a show stopper, just something to keep in mind.
I think something like universal basic income might be an example. This gives people a little more security to improve their education or be entrepreneurial. Ultimately, this ought to give them improved probability of upward mobility with less risk of downward mobility.
> I guess the most extreme thing he did, that he's somewhat infamous for, is refusing to use different singular personal pronouns than "he" and "she". While I think that he was an ass about that, to call someone far right for not wanting to say "ze" in a classroom is a few bridges to far for me.
I don't think this is a very good representation of Dr Peterson's position. He has said, I believe on The Agenda, that he'd consider using those words depending on the motivation of the person requesting it. If the person making the request is playing an ideological game, he will refuse. I think he also said that in the future, if the words naturally enter common parlance, he will consider using them. (I know you didn't argue this, but I'll add it:) he has also said that he would use the pronouns associated with the gender presented. E.g. for a biological male presenting themselves as female, Peterson would automatically refer to them as "she".
The main thrust of his protest that made him famous in 2016 was against compelled speech, that is, being able to force someone to use the words you choose with the force of the law. He says that his position is informed by decades of study of left and right authoritarian systems.
