(If the answer is simply "insufficient wealth redistribution", what is the right amount of wealth redistribution? I.e., at what amount of redistribution do we declare that the wealthy have done enough, and the problem must lie not with them?)
Another example: access to legal services (in the US) is essentially required for fair treatment under the law. Poor people cannot afford legal services, and so will generally not get fair treatment under the law. So a mistake/misunderstanding/relatively minor infraction that would be a mere hassle for a richer person can be life-ruining for a poorer person. In the US, we've gone so far as to apply wildly different penalties to "poor people's drugs" and "rich people's drugs" (obviously stereotypes, but the stereotypes have some basis in fact and are why the laws were written that way).
Poor neighborhoods are more likely to experience elevated crime levels. In the US, this means they are often militarized. This makes everyone that lives in them more at risk for life-ruining run-ins with the law. The people of NYC have decided that it's fair for non-white juveniles to be subject to stopping & frisking anytime, for no cause. This is a tax for which no benefit is derived by the payers.
There are tons of examples like these that have nothing to do with redistribution. If you read the papers, you'll see examples every day.
Poor people are held down by the chains of their own bad habits, not by rich people.
It's the poor and minorities the cops choose to scrutinize and enforce against most.
Few times have I seen such obliviousness to white middle-class privilege on HN.
I'd have to challenge AutoCorrect's implicit assertion that (s)he doesn't break the law. There are so many laws that the assertion is a little difficult to believe. Your explanation is far more likely...
ie - this is the US and it's far better to be white than black, or rich than poor.
And the worst is to be poor and black.
Aside from this, militarization leads to people who didn't even break the law being incarcerated or killed. Take a look at the Innocence Project, and AFAIK they don't even handle people wrongfully convicted of minor offenses.
One possible solution to this is to try and segregate rich from poor as much as possible. That will certainly reduce the harm these rich villains cause. Maybe we need barriers preventing the rich from entering poor neighborhoods (and vice versa, in the interest of fairness). That should reduce crime in poor neighborhoods and improve the schools, right?
I agree with you on the war on drugs.
I recently attended a large art opening in a very wealthy city. The party was full of millionaires and billionaires. Everywhere: free food, free drinks, free everything. I felt more connection with the waiters and servers than I did with any of the rich people enjoying the fruits of all the servers work ..
What I think has to happen is that the rich have to realize that their privilege has to be shared, and they simply have to share it as much as they can. This dividing line between 'me and them' has to disappear. I don't think that wealth-redistribution by the government is any sort of solution; what has to happen is that society has to enlighten itself to the point where these greedy, self-indulgent people do not get created by societys' institutions.
I tipped the waiters, anyway. Nobody else in the room did.
This is like saying the poor rob the rich because they get free ketchup at Burger King.
The political system. Same as it's been for thousands of years.
Being a politician is expensive; fundraising, free time and access is required to rise through the ranks and get stuff done. Also, especially in the US, there is this issue of campaign donations. Giving to someone's campaign is also participating in politics.
And then there is the issue of becoming part of the party apparatus. At my present university, a state university in the Northeast US both College Republicans and Democrats are near invisible. In contrast, at my previous uni, a member of the Ivy League in New England, both parties managed to invite all sorts of established party members, and they were recruiting for campaigning. Think internships.
Yet here on HN we see the benefits of state universities extolled. They may be cheap, but that's because one of the things you go to college for is to build a network of peers and established figures in your chosen field.