Because it is harder to enforce a global understanding of human rights and the need for diversity in smaller more clannish environments.
This is self-contradictory. Smaller, clannish governments are inherently diverse, while larger unified government inherently means reducing diversity of community, viewpoints, and styles of governance.
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
Which is completely unethical unless you believe that every single disadvantaged person did something to justify the treatment they have received.
Consider the same argument in other attributes of life beyond money that government traditionally does not redistribute: social status, athletic accomplishment, physical health, academic achievement and credentials. Did every single disadvantaged person do something to justify the treatment they have received? Of course not! That also doesn't justify involuntary intrusive redistribution. In many cases the redistribution is a greater injustice.
Originally Posted by chrisb
Society does adapt to extreme inequality, but not in the way that you hope. Historically, extreme inequality has led directly to revolution, both violent and non violent. It turns out that the majority of people will not accept income inequality if they are poor. And if the majority of people reject something, then it can't be sustained without removing their power, ie denying them the right to vote and shifting to a non representative government. That's one of the reasons why income inequality is historically correlated with civil conflict. That does not mean it will always be that way, and perhaps some society will discover a way to have both stability and a stratification of income classes through extreme control over the lower classes (ie. something like current Dubai, although even there the economic slave class has been showing signs of dissent, and there have been riots involving thousands of people, so I doubt it is really sustainable in the long term).
These are good, valid points and potential problems with a stratified society. Every society has minorities at the tail ends of the distributions of money/status/power. Those don't always trigger problems. The poor or middle classes don't always resent or clash with the rich.
Dubai has problems much deeper than basic wealth stratification. 90% of the demographic doesn't have basic citizenship or a path to such citizenship. Even families that have lived in Dubai for generations of don't have citizenship or the same basic rights as the nationals. The society is also not a democracy with public elections. That's more of a blood line apartheid system.
Brazil or South Africa is probably a better example of a semi-Democratic society with extreme wealth stratification. And yes, it seems to correlate with conflict.
+1. There is off topic, and there is this. Trying to argue about politics is like arguing with the wind. Please stop and let's get back to the original topic of Mir.
This thread is yet another example of how bad Phoronix needs more active mods. Between the off topic banter and piss poor atitude of so many posters, its getting really hard to find relevant information.