I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote, but I'd like to add a bit about equality of opportunity: 1) It isn't enough if the opportunities are bad (ev

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote, but I'd like to add a bit about equality of opportunity: 1) It isn't enough if the opportunities are bad (even a completely fair system that resulted in 99 out of 100 on the scrap heap doesn't appeal to me). 2) There's got to be a safe "worst" outcome. This is for several reasons a) the alternative punishes risk taking, making a mockery of equality of opportunity b) you don't want the losers in society turning to crime for completely economically justified reasons and c) it's the right thing to do. (And yeah, it's not completely true: I'm one of the ones who made it across. From what I can tell, there aren't that many of us about.)