1. How can a lawyer, whose job is to service a client, use the judiciary to prevent “individuals from leveraging their superior position to inflict harm on those in inferior positions”? I am assuming that the individual doing the leveraging is Party A to the case and our client is the lesser-positioned Party B. In that situation, successfully arguing B’s case (and perhaps winning a hefty damage award) could maybe lead to a little less inequality. But what happens if you find yourself on the wrong side of the courtroom, and you’re defending Party A? You’re obligated to “use the judiciary” to proffer the determination that you have won your case, and nothing more. Perhaps you are suggesting that before using the judiciary, a lawyer should take care to select clients whose causes, if won, will contribute to lessening that inequality divide?

2. Agreed on Mr. Zorn’s point about the income tax suggestion. There are a host of reasons why that idea, while admirable on paper, is problematic in practice, the first of which is that many of the nation’s great cultural institutions, public educational programs and charitable organizations would cease to function, their being largely dependent on large private donations. Another big problem is that the nation’s one percent might declare a civil war (joking, sort of).