Rather than just react to the parent, as I nearly did ("clearly that's a troll") give the statement some thought, in this context I think there's some merit to

Rather than just react to the parent, as I nearly did ("clearly that's a troll") give the statement some thought, in this context I think there's some merit to considering the opinion. The grandparent stated the rather direct correlation: Causes social unrest? Bad. Fajitas made the (I believe accurate, if incendiary) statement of "Is this really true?" I find it especially entertaining that HN would react negatively to this angle of query, given that we embrace the potential conflict when it comes to many aspects speech and other liberties as an _asset_ to those capabilities (many statements of the sort: "someone's civil discord is someone else's civil rights movement") While I can't use this argument to state the opposite, "discord -> good thing", I certainly think there's something to be said that of many of the arguments in this thread, the fact that it causes social unrest is one of the _weaker_ justifications for income rectification in my eyes. (I feel somewhat "copping out" in that I have qualify myself like this, but to be perfectly clear; I absolutely support inspecting this problem and really believe in the concerns regarding cyclical wealth/power building. As such, a weak argument does more harm than good since someone can easily point out contradictions like the ones in my post) As a final postscript, let me take this mental exercise to one extreme, in the attempt to provoke further thought: perhaps unrest is the saving grace of very unequal situations, the final avenue to take when all peaceful ones have been exhausted, and in that sense both a "emergency-pressure-release-valve" on society and a barometer that should be watched with attention.