When I think about how I would like my society to be structured, I am torn between two very different motivations. One is that it be fair; the virtues I would like to see rewarded include ambition, competitiveness, honesty, nonviolence, and intelligence. The other motivation is that my society be functional. It does me little good if fair laws cannot be enforced and the streets are full of violent criminals. For laws to be enforced reliably, a society must be quite stable. For that matter, it must be robust and competitive—if only to defend itself against external enemies.
The central tragedy of economics is that it is impossible to create a society that's both stable and fair. A fair society would surely allow adult individuals to develop their own talents. Whether they needed to manage a lot of wealth to do this would depend on their goals, and would ultimately be up to them to decide. Wealth, however, is not infinite; some mechanism of allocation is required. The free market seems to me a fair and elegant solution to this problem. It would be unfair to punish the nonviolent accumulation of wealth by taking some of it, just as it would be unfair to reward it by adding to it.
But this fairness can be traded for more stability. The most productive citizens, wherever they end up, seem to be most concerned with their own work. They generally are not a threat to the rest of society no matter how much they are abused by it, and so they can be forced to work on behalf of the less creative majority. By contrast, allowing productive citizens to keep the wealth they earn necessarily has destabilizing consequences—those who create nothing of value will fall into poverty and become more violent. The national financial climate could become more volatile as fewer individuals command more of the economic capital. Capitalism, practically by definition, will tend to destroy that which involves no clear victims: the environment. At the end of the day, the field of economics is always a tragedy.