People's wants are not fixed; they generally want what others in their chosen comparison class appear to be enjoying and what advertising presents to them as attainable for them and as bringing happiness.

Epicurus was in favour of friendly sex but not of grand passions or marriage and children, viewing them as sources of trouble and vexation.

I don't see how being a faster runner, or a better mathematician makes you 'deserve' access to a better life, or more influence on policy, in the absence of a social decision to play that game in the way it's proposed to be organised for some set of benefits.

The higher the coefficient of inequality (Gini coefficient) in a society, the worse things tend to be for those at the bottom.

'Contract' succeeded 'status' as the basic organising principle in modern political vs. ancient society.

Claims like 'Slavery is wrong' are not fully common-sensical, so they must be at least partly theoretical.

We use and need to use both systems in complex political societies, and we oscillate in our commitments, because both oligarchy and rule by the will of masses have their bad points, as the ancient philosophers all knew.