You are more right about your former point then you realize. Even in a perfectly fair economy where all the players are equally skilled, statistically the wealth will gather in fewer and fewer hands after each fair and equal transaction.

I disagree with your conclusion though “choose freedom”. In an unequal society, those that have will have control over those that have not. Meaning the freedom you speak of is only available to those that are lucky in their earlier transaction (or more realistically those that inherit the most).

>Why do you suppose that under conditions of perfect fairness we would see perfect equality? That's just not the case. Human talent is not sprinkled in the proportion in each person. You can achieve equality only through Harrison Bergeron measures. I'd rather have freedom.

The assumption here that perfect fairness is a perfect information meritocracy is an intellectual leap, and even if true belies the fact that what constitutes merit is defined by those who have power.

Is this perfect fairness outcome or opportunity based? Is the equality measured purely in terms of economic outcome or in terms of individual value maximization?

There's too much swept under the rug to generalize a model about the direction of society.

If you want inequality to be based on talent, you need "Harrison Bergeron" levels of redistribution, since you can't have generational wealth.