It's a matter of scale. Your characterization of the opposite viewpoint being complete equality is a strawman. What people are opposed to is the extreme levels of wealth inequality that exists, not the concept that one person can build more wealth than another.
It's not a strawman argument because he's arguing with people who cite "wealth inequality" on its own as a justification for riots. There isn't any limit or objective quantity attached to the argument - it's phrased in such a way that it can only be interpreted to mean absolute equality. Otherwise it'd be expressed differently, something like "if the gini coefficient is >X then rioting is OK, if it's <=X then violence is not the answer".
Obviously, people don't make that argument, and the implication is that they don't really want to be tied down to any actual existing real world situation. By extension there's no level of wealth inequality they would accept. Then one must wonder why not? Perhaps they just enjoy watching the left riot. Alternative explanations welcome.
People aren't taking to the streets rioting - wealth inequality is at acceptable levels
People are taking to the streets rioting - wealth inequality is at unacceptable levels
Yes I know, that is trite, and circular, but maybe there is something in it. No-one is going to be able to define an exact acceptable level of wealth inequality, but your argument is an asymmetrical standard. I could just as well argue that your view says it is ok for the top 0.1% of people to have 99% of all the wealth while everyone else shares the other 1%. Would you deem that acceptable (assuming we live in the real world and not a fantasy of no scarcity)?
Except the riots on the streets aren't about wealth inequality, they're about a proposal for reduced government spending. Why? Government spending has been supported by constantly taking out new debt, and now both issuance of new debt is sputtering and increased interest payments are due.
This has, of course, not convinced the government to stop increasing debt. This is people's reaction to merely slightly reducing the rate of debt increase.
The problem is not even that the debt is too high, but because the state's demand for new debt just for this year is too high at the interest rates they're offering.
Sort of. Government spending usually turns into a debate about wealth inequality in the next step though, usually right around the time someone suggests paying for it all by taxing the rich.
Problem is, paying for it with resources taken from the rich requires 10% of ALL the resources the rich have (not from their income, everything). Per year. Which would cannibalize most businesses in France in the process.
Leaving aside how moral this is or isn't, and the practical problems (like destroying businesses, and the fact that capital can't actually be sold at the price it is valued), it would block the state's ability to lend, which would immediately force the state to save 20 times more than what the protests are about.
Actually doing what every party is screaming they want to do (pay for the state using the rich's resources) would cause an immediate disaster. But this is France, that doesn't mean they won't do it.
