The problem is that a lot of original capital is attained through what we'd consider 'illegitimate' means, namely the judicious use of killing. After the killing stopped, capital was spread amongst the victors and inherited through the generations, sometimes being passed between people based on their relative perceived worth. So, many generations later, people may be 'earning' the wealth they have, but the original source of that wealth never gains legitimacy.
This line of thinking leads to a paralysed regression, however. We can never say when wealth became 'deserved'. We tend to think of the modern allotment as 'fair enough' and then are happy to proceed from today, in some sort of meritocracy. It works, but it's an illusion of justice, of fairness.
I tend to find wealth derived from sheer creation to be the most deserved. Inventing a brand new product, which benefits the purchaser, and then selling it. The second type of wealth is when capital is purchased or rented from 'the people' at a fair price (for debatable values of 'fair'), and then the capital is transformed and sold to create value. If I own a plot of land that has trees, and then make & sell baseball bats, I find that I deserve my wealth. However, if I own a plot of land, and it's discovered that there's 'unobtainium' there, why would I deserve that wealth more than my city does? Or my country? It was a net generational effort to acquire, protect, and maintain that land. Even if I purchased the land 'fairly', it's clear that the value of the land was not the same as my neighbour's plot (who purchased his barren land for the same price).
New intellectual discoveries are legitimate, imo. New resource creation/transformation is also legitimate. For example I see no reason to suggest that the team that harvests an asteroid shouldn't be allowed to sell the products without interruption. But that's not the same as saying that they 'own' the whole asteroid!
This line of thinking leads to a paralysed regression, however. We can never say when wealth became 'deserved'. We tend to think of the modern allotment as 'fair enough' and then are happy to proceed from today, in some sort of meritocracy. It works, but it's an illusion of justice, of fairness.
I tend to find wealth derived from sheer creation to be the most deserved. Inventing a brand new product, which benefits the purchaser, and then selling it. The second type of wealth is when capital is purchased or rented from 'the people' at a fair price (for debatable values of 'fair'), and then the capital is transformed and sold to create value. If I own a plot of land that has trees, and then make & sell baseball bats, I find that I deserve my wealth. However, if I own a plot of land, and it's discovered that there's 'unobtainium' there, why would I deserve that wealth more than my city does? Or my country? It was a net generational effort to acquire, protect, and maintain that land. Even if I purchased the land 'fairly', it's clear that the value of the land was not the same as my neighbour's plot (who purchased his barren land for the same price).
New intellectual discoveries are legitimate, imo. New resource creation/transformation is also legitimate. For example I see no reason to suggest that the team that harvests an asteroid shouldn't be allowed to sell the products without interruption. But that's not the same as saying that they 'own' the whole asteroid!
