By the same token, and as MaikU said, particular manifestations of fairness are also not written into the fabric of the cosmos.
With that said, how do you know whether “unfairness can be tackled and overcome”? Are you implicitly claiming that an objective standard of (un)fairness necessarily exists? If so, I’d ask you to please support that claim.
Nice attempt at evading the questions. It won’t work though. So why are you afraid of answering the questions? And what are your answers to them (if you have any)?
Where and when did such a freedom exist in the first place? Please enlighten me.
How do you define “power”, exactly?
You are getting the returns. You’re getting a place to stay. How is that not a return? Obviously you prefer being able to stay in the house/apartment/etc. than you prefer keeping the money it costs you to stay there - otherwise, you wouldn’t pay the rent. It’s as simple as that.
That begs the question - what exactly is their contribution? And guess what? There is no objective answer to that question!
This is the problem when looking at economic activity in terms of equity. If value is subjective (which it is), how can different economic goods or services ever be proven to have the same value?
How do you expect us to convince you if you’re not open to being convinced in the first place?
Otherwise, what do you mean by “endogenous”? Do you mean “from within the market”, or “from within human nature”? But regardless, Austrian-School economists completely reject the concept of economic equilibrium as anything more than a theoretical construct - what Mises called “the imaginary construct of the evenly-rotating economy”. In other words, there is no equilibrium to be had to begin with! Believing otherwise would be seen by Austrian-School economists as committing a methodological error.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s what John James meant by “measure”. Let’s say Smith can make 8 widgets per hour. One potential employer, Jones, “measures” Smith’s output as being worth $8 per hour. Another potential employer, Wilson, “measures” it as being worth $10 per hour. Which potential employer is “measuring” correctly?
I’d love to see the equations you’ve derived. They must be quite detailed and rigorous!
Translation: “No, I’m not saying an objective measurement can be made. But I am saying that an objective measurement can be made.” In other words, your first two sentences above necessarily contradict each other. To say that there are certain upper limits to how much wealth an individual can create is to implicitly claim that 1) wealth can be measured objectively, and 2) wealth produced by individuals is objectively limited. Now please provide your rigorous logical or mathematical reasoning that proves how this must be the case.
Leftists love to use tit-for-tat when painted into a logical corner.
Anyways, perhaps you’d like to actually explain what does make you think that you’re in any position to make such a determination (to say nothing of having the right to do so)?
Perhaps you’d like to actually explain how he allegedly “doesn’t get it”?
Please support every clause which I have appended with the tag “[bare assertion]” above.
I’ll note for the record that this appears to be an argument from ignorance.