As long as all cooperate voluntarily, there is no problem. It is only the enforced leveling at the point of a gun that is objectionable.

Fair point.

What part of the idea that the use of force, coercion, and fraud is immoral do you fail to understand?

Jeez, no need to get aggressive.

I'm used to dealing with Libertarians (note the capital "L") who insist on markets to distribute material goods, which almost certainly means inequality of income/wealth. Normally markets can't operate without force and coercion (otherwise, how to you prevent theft or uphold private property rights?). Anyway, most Libertarians recoil at egalitarianism, and many claim (like Cuchulain did) that it is contrary to human nature.

Anyway, I find it quite pleasing that the only known stateless human societies were also egalitarian.

What I do think that people seldom acknowledge is that, given that all humans began existence as hunter-gatherers, that pastoralism, agriculture and society building were late inventions, its clear that someone, somewhere, a human or number of them like any other, raised the ante and went unegalitarian.

I'll acknowledge it.

One could easily argue that the arc of history leads to increasingly complex, unequal, hoarding societies, and subsumption or extermination of those that won't go there.

I'll acknowledge that too.

Its neither here nor there; I tend to think that recalling some placid existence that would exist, if not for evil government, tends to leave out the fact that humans came up with this all on their own and once they started, they couldn't stop.

I've never advocated going back to a hunter-gatherer existence. For starters, that lifestyle simply couldn't support our current numbers.

The reason I brought up the hunter-gatherer example was to refute Cuchulain's point that human nature somehow requires material inequality. It does not, and the hunter-gatherer example proves the point.

Also, while it is interesting that hunter-gatherer societies were not only egalitarian, but also had no government (a combination that should embarass the libertarians out there), I didn't mean to say anything about government. I presume that large societies do require some form of government - I just reject the notion that they require income/wealth inequality (something I might be wrong about).

Finally, I sincerely hope that we can change the trajectory we are on, because it is leading directly to collapse and die-off, and perhaps extinction.

Tell me the last time you paid your taxes at the point of a gun. Tell me the last time you were violently coerced into paying them.

I'm only answering this because it bears on our own thread.

Just because nobody comes to your house on April 15 and puts a gun to your head until you write a check to Uncle Sam, that does not mean that taxes are free of coercion.

Go ahead - don't pay your taxes. Tell your employer not to withhold any money from your paycheck. Let's see how long it takes before force is used against you - either in the form of wage garnishment, or being dragged off to court (should you refuse to go) by a real officer with a real gun, who may very well use it on you if you refuse to come quietly.

As long as people perceive the threat of violence to be real, then actual force is not usually required to compel people to comply. But coercion is still involved.