>I'm not sure how you mean "egalitarianism is a trap". Complicated subject to be sure. I am a through and through egalitarian. That is not to say we should hav

>I'm not sure how you mean "egalitarianism is a trap". Complicated subject to be sure. I am a through and through egalitarian. That is not to say we should have true equality. True equality is not possible. > Where does this egalitarianism exist? Legal, social, etc. Most people would agree places like Canada or Iceland or Norway are egalitarian. I suspect you're arguing from the Marxist classless society point of view. I'll let you define that if you are doing so. >Wealth gaps are massive and continue to grow basically everywhere in the world. Because of egalitarianism believe it or not. Lets look at an example. We had X amount of jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Labor_Force_Participation_Rate_by_gender.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_Stat... When women entered the workplace, those werent new jobs. Total % relatively unchanged. That means women displaced men. I think this has been great. More talented women replaced less talented men. However, what did that do? It meant for the same number of jobs, there was far more competition. Supply demand. More supply of workers, and same demand. That means the workers lose. Thus fueling inequality. >There's now a large class of people who own nothing and likely always will. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Sin... Not at all. We used to have 90% poverty 200 years ago. Today we're down to 10%. That's for 1 reason and only 1 reason. Capitalism. The trend is obvious as well. Way down. In fact we might expect to see capitalism spread through africa and a few other parts of the world eliminating poverty. No longer will there be people who own nothing unless they do so intentionally. >Or do you mean you oppose specifically legal egalitarianism? That all people should not be equal under the law; some more equal than others? Oh no, I dont oppose eqalitarianism in any way.