Well more of a disagreement. A colleague and I have been going back and forth about why inequality is bad and the topic of whether or not capitalism, as it tends to be more individualistic, has successfully convinced people (At least in America) to forget that the maintenance of the state is a communal project, per social contract theory. He argues: A state should not be a continuous project of the social contract that established it. He also believes capitalism to be a protection of the individual and instead the inequality is to be blamed directly on that rich people are able to influence politics disproportionately compared to the poor, which then allows the cycle of inequality to continue. I argue: A state is a continuous project per the social contract of communal involvement. I think that capitalism has been able to distract people from this purpose thereby then allowing us to think that individual prosperity is all that we need. Inequality, then, is caused by the fact that we all have an equal claim to this state as citizens and that has been forgotten. Some citizens are valued more than others, but that this is especially apparent when it comes to money and politics. I don't think that either of us are entirely wrong, i just think he's not seeing the bigger picture. He argues from standpoint, from what I can tell, that equality should be the goal. I disagree.