> If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. an individuals contribution is larg

> If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. an individuals contribution is largely a matter of their innate dispositions coinciding with their innate aptitudes coinciding with the particular labor demands at the time in which one is alive. society perpetuates bring people into this world without any guarantee that they will be able to contribute at a certain level. yet you expect that only the individual should carry the burden of that throw of the dice? i put A LOT of effort into training myself as a software developer and now make a reasonable living from that, but i also simply found myself at a young age with a passion for understanding computers and a reasonable aptitude for the kind of thinking involved. other kids found themselves with a disposition for sports, or painting, or french literature, etc., but maybe their aptitude doesn't make the cut in those winner-take-all fields. tragically, other kids simply never find any disposition or aptitude. they don't deserve to be in that position any more than i deserve to be in mine. so yes, there ought to be systems for redistributing wealth from those who are lucky enough to find themselves with financially remunerable dispositions and aptitudes. there ought to be guarantees for certain standards of living, and those standards ought to be damn high given that no one asks to be born, no one asks to be afflicted with attachment to being alive.