No need to reverse the thought or come to the conclusion you reached. Rights, fair, equal, etc. These are all valuations we make on the fly. They aren't built i

No need to reverse the thought or come to the conclusion you reached. Rights, fair, equal, etc. These are all valuations we make on the fly. They aren't built into the fabric of reality. The simple fact of the matter is within a capitalist framework, money is not distributed evenly (not suggesting it should be), and not everyone starts with the same hand, so "fair" doesn't really have any significance. The relationship between the wealthy and the poor of today is similar to the relationship between the brutes and the weaklings of the past. The difference is the activity of the wealthy gets socially categorized as civilized or fair, but the activities of brutes are classified as savage. What's the difference between me forcing you to move from a place by threatening to kill you and forcing you to move by changing the environment (cost of living, rules of living, compensation, etc.) so you can't stay? You could say "living vs. dying is the difference," but that's not true from the perspective of the powerful. If I hold the power in this hypothetical, from my perspective I had a goal of forcing you to move; and I achieved it. With all of that said, and the veil of fairness thrown away, only one question remains. Would you be ok with being forced to move from your home because a billionaire decided he likes your neighborhood? Assume you aren't compensated for the move.