It's common during discussion to go back and clarify terms, but thanks for being so ethical. As to fairness/justice above equality, I feel that way too.
I guess you're now hoping that I've forgotten that you haven't answered my question. Are you resentful of people who have inherited wealth? If so, why?
I'm not resentful, but noting that fairness/justice are not being served if we are building a caste society.
I don't see how that builds caste societies. Caste societies are official classes which confer rights privileges and responsibilities one is imputed with by being born into a given caste. Money is not that way, it's fluid. It comes, it goes. Rich people become very poor, poor people become very wealthy. Many people who inherit money blow it all on nonsense. Some hide it away for emergencies and live externally modest (yet obviously less stressed) lives. Assets are liquid. Castes are not. So I've pointed out a logical fallacy lurking in that comparison, I believe.
I think you are largely right here, in theory. In practice, the more powerful strata make society's laws and define its norms, (and where money can go) thus potentially (eventually) creating castes, and of course protecting themselves. We're not quite caste yet, not de jure, but we're getting there de facto. Give us a few more generations of growing stratification and let's see.
The more power one has, the less they think the powerless are equal, or deserving of justice. Let's just say that power and wealth (or a lust for wealth) have a tendency to corrupt.
which is exactly why we have to stay away from powerful govts. leftists govt make strong govt chavez like. Concentrated money and concentrated power can make for a corrupt cronyism. The only safe and sane is approach is a limited and small federal govt with decentralized power. Exactly opposite of what the left and soros and half the right and bush types are pushing for. we have to stay away from soros open society and world govt. It will be dreadful. concentrated power just begging to be corrupted. Welcome to Reagan country.
Power has the tendency to corrupt, which is the reason why government should be as small as possible. The larger it gets, the more corrupt it will inexorably get. So, people should have the most power over their own lives and property, so the only person that would suffer from their corruption, is themselves. Socialists and fascists want sweeping power over people's lives. They either want control over people's economic freedom, or their personal freedom, or in many cases both.
Although Reagan didn't start it, he poured lots and lots of resources into the War on Drugs, and the prison population increased dramatically under him. His foreign policy was very interventionist as well. Taxation might be the ONLY positive achievement I can award him, without being pedantic.
Democrats used to believe in individual freedoms even as they pressed for more socialist/entitlement programs that were paid for by the middle class, wealthy and small business. Along the way they overreached and became the party of class warefare. They have just about bankrupted the country with these programs and have stagnated the economy from what it should be. Along the way, Democrats decided they needed to start eliminating freedoms to keep the welfare/poor class from moving out of their prediciment. In fact, by growing the poor class the Democats began to see an ever growing political base from which to grow their own political power. This has become the state of the current Democratic party.