- The only possible set-point for equality is everyone at the subsistence level, (although the sub-conscious assumption of most advocates of "equality" is that everyone will be at their particular income level! They don't envision themselves being further impoverished to living in packing boxes on hillsides).
- That the enforcement of "equality" results in a punishment of success, crippling all entrepreneurial wealth creation and the impoverishment of society as a whole.
In fact, network economics completely violates established norms and notions and has yet to be understood completely. The marginal cost of adding a node to the network is virtually zero, yet the network itself becomes more valuable.
The tragic misconception of the Progressive Marxists is that wealth is fixed, and the only task is a "fair distribution" of it. It comes from the 1840's when Karl Marx was writing during the British Industrial Revolution. Drawing from previous agricultural economic theory, the assumption was wealth was like farm land and the income like the crops. But this is NOT true in the information age!
To extend the metaphor, it is as if farmland can be expanded with incentive, or it will contract with disincentive. When Microsoft goes public, Bill Gates' wealth of 500 million shares of founders stock can be calculated. But for the Marxists to snarl that it's "unfair" is preposterous!
But the wealth is theoretical! If Mr. Gates tried to sell it all at once, it would drive down the price. If the government confiscated and redistributed the shares, (1.6 shares per citizen) it would destroy the market value and it would be worthless. Each citizen would have a stock certificate that would make good toilet paper.
Thus, equality equals poverty. But the Marxists don't care. As Saul Alinsky said: "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven".