> If Graham includes social injustice in his exceptions list, then I suppose 
> that he and I are in agreement.

He concedes at least one such social injustice (differing access to 
educational opportunities) in footnote 16.

> But if Graham believes in the entrenched, pervasive nature of social 
> injustice, why does he spend so much time waxing poetic about the 
> inherent fairness of economic inequality?

Sounds like our only disagreement now is how entrenched and pervasive the 
injustices are.

> The fact that Graham spends most of his time talking about this 
> idealized world suggests that either a) he is a hopeless utopian, or b) 
> he does not, in fact, believe that social injustice is entrenched and 
> pervasive ;-).

Probably a bit of both!

But at least we're all (except probably Trixie) agreed that the very fact 
of having a lot of wealth is not harming any poor people, except perhaps 
in some very indirect way along the lines Michelle proposed.  And even 
then I don't think the studies Michelle cited point to an income gap as a 
*cause* of poorer health, just a correlation.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it."
		 -- Donald Knuth