How should the government redistribute the wealth among its citizens?

Option: Allow no redistribution.

Con: Were the government to play no hand in redistributing the wealth among its citizens, the class distinctions within the nation would become so pronounced that civil war might ultimately result.

Option: Minimize extreme economic disparities among social classes.

Pro: Minimizing extreme economic disparities among social classes is a way of preventing those classes from growing so far apart that the nation risks having severe social upheavals. But it also allows for rewards to those who have distinguished themselves by their achievements.

Option: Eliminate economic distinctions among social classes.

Con: Attempts to eliminate economic distinctions among social classes can dampen the motivation of citizens to excel in their work for the nation.

Con: There are dangers to the very existence of a society where substantial numbers of its members feel that they are entitled to rewards which they have not earned: citizens who argue that they should be able to consume the riches of a society without themselves producing any wealth are likely to weaken that society and, if their numbers are sufficient, eventually destroy it.

Con: Most people are likely to resist all attempts to eliminate economic distinctions among social classes, because they view as unnatural the redistribution of assets from those who have earned them in legal ways to those who have not earned them.

Considering all economic inequality as problematic is superficial at best and dangerous at worst. Some minor economic inequality is inevitable and need not be a cause for concern. In fact, a system that allows for economic inequality, albeit one that provides a way for all citizens to satisfy their basic needs, is likely to be the most productive. Moreover, it is likely to be the one in which people from all income levels would choose to live. For it offers everyone a chance to rise on the socioeconomic ladder.