No. Even in those hunter-gatherer societies, material possessions were not equal. They were divided according to division of labor, and success of the hunt.

Well, let's see some evidence. The sources I've seen claim that there was, in essence, material equality between hunter-gatherers. While a successful hunter might get a larger share of that hunt, the spoils were usually shared with the tribe generally, and today's unsuccessful hunter might be successful tomorrow, so that in total, material abundance was shared more or less equally.

The fact that there were minor differences does not refute the general point.

When things shifted to domestication of animals, some people in the tribe got to keep more animals than others. Ranks were in place in ancient times as well. When we moved on to agrarian societies, differences grew even more.

Yes - when people moved away from hunter-gatherer societies, and became agriculturalists and herders, the situation changed. But again, that does not refute the point that human societies have indeed existed where material wealth was shared _essentially_ equally. Obviously some human societies have exhibited inequality of wealth and income.

I merely brought this whole example up to point out real human societies which had essential equality of material outcomes have already existed. You therefore can't argue that is isn't possible to achieve.

We can never go back to anything approaching what you're talking about

I have not advocated that.

and it really never existed in the first place

Of course it did. We have a wealth of historical accounts from the people who encountered relatively recent hunter-gatherer societies, and of course we have other evidence that have been dug up by various scientists (archeologists, etc.).

There were always fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, more athletic and successful hunters, leaders, followers, chiefs, shamans, and religious hierarchies.

True - so what? How does that undermine my argument? I'm arguing for material equality, not absolute equality in every respect.

This seems like a point a libertarian might make, that any degree of inequality of wealth and income should be allowed. I mean, once you allow for inequality, why should it be limited at all?

You'd have to go back to very small bands of say, five or less, to get to any kind of equality of material circumstance, and even those grew and evolved.

Why?

Forced equal results requires violent coercion.

And around and around we go. Why, I ask again, does insisting on equality of material outcome, or equal pay for everyone (not quite the same thing really) necessitate violent coercion, but taking a "large fraction" from the wealthy, so that they "pay their fair share", does not require violent coercion? You are forcing an outcome either way.

I'd like to hear you answer this point, which you have so far refused to do.

The thing to do is to find the sweet spot. To find the best point at which you have the least inequality with the least amount of coercion involved to maintain level playing fields. IMO, we are currently light years away from that sweet spot in America. Our economic system has too much social Darwinism in place. I'd say the Scandinavian countries are the closest in the world right now to that sweet spot, but I think there's still more room to maneuver without involving undue coercion.

There is a lot here I can agree with. I would very much prefer a Scandanavian model to the US model. But if less inequality is good, why not go for the gusto and eliminate it? All I've seen in your posts so far is an aversion to the extremes - that some kind of middle ground must be best.

You very well could end up being right in the end, but you don't seem to have a good sense for why "the middle" is better than the egalitarian extreme.

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.