> Inventions and new technologies increases wealth

Increases wealth for a few. Studies have shown that technology is not actually making us more productive in the past 10+ years.

> In order to keep growing

Who says we need to keep growing? We have enough mouths to feed on this planet already.

> 'Redistribution' is inherently unfair

There is no such thing as “inherently” fair or unfair. Did anyone “earn” a wealthy upbringing? Did anyone “earn” their genetic advantages? Outcomes are a result of one’s nature and nurture, neither of which are under one’s control. Anything you have is a gift from the universe, and you will either share your gifts or not.

“If I had to support my family growing up instead of having time to code, if I didn’t know I’d be fine if Facebook didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be standing here today” - Mark Zuckerberg

“I think about the amount of human potential that is being wasted by people that are not doing what they want to do. I think about how great it would be to undo that. And that’s really powerful to me.” - Sam Altman

“People who fall by the wayside, through no fault of their own, as the goose lays more golden eggs, should still get a chance to participate in that prosperity.” - Warren Buffett

> and in a global world it will only cause capital flight

“Only” would imply that everyone with capital has the same opinion as you, but it doesn’t sound like you understand how people with capital actually think.

Really interesting take on fairness: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#TwoGuiIdeJusFai

> 'Redistribution' is inherently unfair

This is a peculiar, and unsubstantiated assertion. I certainly wouldn't consider this an axiom in any discussion about economic policy. Can you explain a little more?

Or are you just saying that you believe that redistribution is unfair?

The world is inherently unfair - people can’t control what family they are born into. It’s unfair that some of those families may have be subject to generations of marginalization.

So if redistribution is “unfair” it’s only to counteract the inherent unfairness of the current system.

Increasing legacy taxes (a lot) would help to make the world fairer in the long run.

And this is why I’ve been saying for years that all children should be taken at birth and put into centrally managed government daycares where all babies can be raised in equal environments. It’s completely absurd and unfair that a rich baby gets so much more than a poor baby. Until we stop letting parents raise their own children and let society do it, there will always be inequality at birth which cannot be overcome.

It's much too difficult a problem to solve completely, so we should give up immediately. Your strawman has shown me the light.

Frankly, fairness is irrelevant. There's nothing fair about the distribution of wealth. There is a natural tendancy for the wealthy to grow more wealthy, and the poor to grow more poor. Hence the power-law distribution of wealth observed in every society throughout the history of man, not to mention in the other natural systems.

I disagree that Redistribution is unfair when the playing field isn't level from the get go.

The playing field was last level (for humans) about 15,000 years ago.

(It probably wasn't, but no records from that long ago exist so we can pretend.)

All forms of redistribution, of any kind or at any level?

Here in the UK we have a bit of a different history on this that has pushed British conservatism in a more centrist direction. The first and second world wars were existential crises for us that stretched our economies and society to near breaking point. Millions of Britons were called up, worked in munitions factories, or volunteered in public services and the Land Army. It was a concerted effort across all levels of society. A major problem in the first war was so many draftees were unfit for service due to poor health and nutrition, this created a consensus that a coordinated system of social support and health care was essential for national security if nothing else.

So over here, it’s not really about redistribution. Sure there are plenty of socialists over here who are committed redistributionists, sure. Socialism is entrenched in Europe in a way it really isn’t in the US. But even among the majority of conservatives over here, history has shown us the its in the national interest to have a population that is well nourished, healthy and has a basic education that makes them fit to work, and serve if it comes to that.

Fair is inherently subjective.

Indeed there's many different interpretations of fairness: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-procedures/#Fai

Sure, but you can objectively tell if something is unfair. Defining fairness is more difficult.

How ? The definition of fairness itself subjective.

What's the objective definition of unfair?

I'm not talking about a definition. Just that, for example, if one child gets born in a rich country to a rich family and one child to a poor family in a third world country, their starting conditions are unfair. This doesn't help much with a definition of unfair, but I think it's still objective.