Maybe "the market" is not a good tool to solve inequality.
We aren't natural. We don't need natural evolutionary states. We need unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states.
I don't need "unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states". I'm perfectly happy with a state where I can acquire as many resources as possible, even if that incurs a significant cost to others.
> Why hasnt the government solved this problem?
Maybe the government is not a good tool to solve inequality?
After all, what percentage of your salary before taxes goes to directly help the less fortunate with no middleman? Before you answer: You could probably do more.
Assuming the natural resources you might want to exploit are living beings, you have to maintain an equilibrium in the environment or you can get resource starvation, which then impacts you directly, either as increased costs or an end to the goods entirely. You can easily see this in things like elephant/rhino poaching, where the unregulated demand will eventually result in no more supply at all. Even slavery requires considering the costs of maintaining the slaves, as if the slaves deteriorate, they won't be as productive, and it will cost you more to acquire new ones. Or if you attempt to take over some new lands, but your diseases wipe out the native population, now you don't have the natives to use as slaves anymore.
In respect to the American economy today, inequality and exploitation can lead to several problems. 1) Lack of skilled workers, 2) ballooning health care prices and increased taxes, 3) political unrest leading to trade problems, not to mention limited business growth, 4) overthrow of government, 5) state taking over commercial entities, 6) economic collapse , 7) massive refugee crisis. Oh wait, that's Venezuela. For us it's just the first few.
No matter what, you will eventually have to consider the costs to others if you want to acquire unlimited resources.
I'm assuming you were referring to survival of the fittest, which is commonly misunderstood to be survival of the strongest.
What survival of the fittest actually means is survival of those most adaptive to change, which is not at all what you are describing.
I'm not going to judge you on moral grounds. Instead, consider what would happen if everyone lived like that. What kind of world would we have? I think it would be a hellish dog-eat-dog world.
You may believe that the world is already that way, but at the moment, there is a lot of kindness, compassion and consideration too. Instead of that, if everyone had the attitude of "I got mine, f* you", the world would be unimaginably worse than it is now.
Moreover, that kind of living is unsustainable in the long run. If you collect as many resources as possible to the detriment of others, sooner or later others would try to snatch those back from you, even by violence.
And if you think he meant human nature, I would say that generally, by nature, humans are kind and share with those they see as their people, but the complete opposite with anyone outside that group. Since the market is made up of people only in the abstract to most people, I would say that that nature doesn't tend toward equillibrium between individuals either.
I only hope you won't meet some day a man who wants to "acquire as many resources as possible, even if that incurs a significant cost to others" on a dark alley.
If you don't want to follow anyone's rules but your own, I recommend living completely on your own in the wilderness, off the grid and all that. Only then are you responsible only for yourself.
In any case, there are many examples in nature where a small percentage of the males do a very disproportionate amount of the mating.