Lots. 1. We are social creatures, not homines oeconomici whose utility function only includes our own consumption. (In fact, I feel that the argument you (and

Lots. 1. We are social creatures, not homines oeconomici whose utility function only includes our own consumption. (In fact, I feel that the argument you (and others) make comes from this mistaken Econ 101 idea that the simplifying economics assumption of a utility function only including own consumption is has normative character (ie we should only look at that). But it has neither positive (descriptive) nor normative character for actual humans.) 2. Extreme inequality jeopardises the democratic project, and corrodes the political process. 3. In the real world, higher inequality is linked to more crime. (Too lazy to find the reference now, but there's a recent book out on it.) 4. The jostling for status arguably leads to enormously wasteful spending (ie conspicuous consumption, ostentatious waste, etc.) 5. Life expectancy, health, happiness seem higher in more equal societies. You can't just dismiss these facts (some empirical, some philosophical) by "why should you care about what someone else has?". (Note: none of the above objections are dependent on a false "zero-sum" or "fixed-pie" argument.) In addition to Nozick, I recommend reading Rawls (or even better, somebody writing about Rawls - his "Theory of Justice" is very heavy reading, taking way too long to get to the points).