> Personally, I can't conceive of a situation where, in a perfectly fair system, the man with the most money is utterly intolerable. I'm not sure how this is a

> Personally, I can't conceive of a situation where, in a perfectly fair system, the man with the most money is utterly intolerable. I'm not sure how this is a response to what I wrote. I'm talking about the tolerability of outcomes for the UNwealthy, while you're talking about a rich person being intolerable? The semantic quibbling I'm referring to is the idea that when someone like Bernie Sanders rails about "economic inequality", they are implicitly advocating economic equality (which is incorrect, as I've stated in my original comment), and bouncing off that to present "fairness" as the real thing at issue.