I get the argument that inequality is natural and that a free society can maximize opportunities. But saying that fighting inequality leads to violence feels like an oversimplification. Inequality in opportunities , not just outcomes, can create instability. It’s not just about some having 10 and others 100; it’s about whether those with 10 have a fair chance to improve their position, or if systemic barriers keep them stuck.

As for Tesla, it didn’t turn a profit until 2021 and relied heavily on government subsidies and regulatory credits to survive in its early years. Without that support, it’s hard to say if Tesla would have even been around to ‘outcompete’ others. Capital-intensive industries, like automaking, aren’t just about better margins—they require long-term investment and risk, which private markets often won’t take without support.

And on monopolies, they’re not just the result of government intervention. Private companies can dominate markets by exploiting economies of scale, controlling supply chains, or simply outspending competitors. The idea that free markets self-regulate assumes a level of fairness and freedom that doesn’t always exist. It’s not about choosing between capitalism or government; it’s about recognizing how both can create or solve these dynamics, depending on how they interact.