My point is that, in a free market society, the creation of wealth, even tremendous wealth, generally increases the wealth and raises the standards of living of the entire society. The idea that wealth is gained at the expense of the lower classes is the fallacy.
Stratification means lack of mobility upwards or downwards, which is not usually symptomatic of free market societies in which all are allowed to participate.
"Wide 'distribution' of wealth" by central authority *is* socialism, or at least a major component of it. Once the state has the power to distribute our property, it has the means to totalitarian power.
I read your link to the little essay from Aristotle on "arete." I much enjoyed it and agee that it makes some very good points. Unfortunately, IMO, in this context it comes close to being a justification for rationalism and for the sentiment "from each according to his ability, for each according to his need." The point being that in a free society it is not up to the state but to the individual to define through the use of reason (and instinct) his own personal "arete" or virtue.
Beyond which, I believe that those who have accumulated great wealth have done this not so much because they are greedy for riches, or because they are driven to do good for mankind. They achieve it because they are pursuing their own personal dreams and visions, or even just because they are good at something and find joy in doing what they are good at. A free society does not prohibit this, nor does it define the personal dream of the individual.
Please forgive me for the delay in response, I mashed a finger under a heavy log and am not typing so well.
"a free market society" is a dream. It never existed, it does not exist and it will NEVER exist.
The idea that wealth is gained at the expense of the lower classes is the fallacy.
It is not a fallacy. Throughout the whole history the wealth was "gained at the expense of the lower classes". Remember the golden rule: "who has the gold, rules".