Equilibrating societal and moral differences.

I am only amused when people talk of all encompassing equality (be it financial or any other) and actions entailing common good. What I fail to understand is that in the event of financial equality, a scenario where nobody would be willing to do the supposedly ‘menial’ labor work, would the owner of a house under construction carry the bricks himself? Philanthropy, as it is, is limited by constraints; constraints which vary with time and our position.  No strings attached, an average person wouldn’t want anyone to fall sick. Consider the mindset of a pharmacist; this stance would do him no good, since it negates his business prospects. Yet there is no way out of it. The traffic police would love it fewer people were to wear the appropriate gear (money under the desk); yet such a desire increases the susceptibility of a greater damage during accidents. What should the antivirus companies do if the number of hackers plummets to zero?  We talk of strength mental and physical; will a doctor or a psychiatrist think the same way? I don’t think so. The greater the insanity, the happier is the latter. Yet we foolishly bicker with each other over common good. What we fail to realize is that the distinction between good and bad is highly subjective, variable and thin. What is good to me may not be good to some other being. The very fact that my thirst cannot be quenched unless a few thousands or may be more of micro-organisms die is empirical evidence of the displacing effect that our existence has. It is only foolish to think of something narrow in the interest of the entire populace. The equilibrium, the dynamic one that we are in, is buttressed by differences, and to remove this is to disturb this equilibrium.