> According to this theory, as I understand it, you can't have the differences among people be too great because it will cause too much power imbalance and res

> According to this theory, as I understand it, you can't have the differences among people be too great because it will cause too much power imbalance and resentment and eventually the masses will rise up and destroy the system from within. You shouldn't think of the destruction of the system from within as the problem. Some might fear that, but afterall, its unlikely that the people without power would beat those that have it. The problem is the power zero sum game in itself. Wealth and power are both ways to gather even more wealth and power. In a simple society without a government you could simply use the power to buy weapons and soldiers to coerce the wealth of others. In our society you can use power to shape the rules more favorably for your own group. As the wealth ratio of one group converges to 100%, the other groups have gradually less influence, unless allowed by those in power because of ideology or their good hearts. Either you see this as fine and natural, or your ideology prefers everyone to have some amount of freedom over their own lives. In the later case you may look at ways to reduce the wealth and power inequality, by weeding out rules particularly favorable to the powerful, or by trying to spread wealth more evenly.