I think that's just something we tell each other so the children can sleep at night.

Of course we exacerbate information asymmetries. That's what we do. That's why the neanderthals are in our museums, instead of the other way around.

Saying we shouldn't is like saying birds shouldn't fly, because it's not fair to the fish.

There's a difference between survival and luxuries (like a trip to Paris). Ethics and politics should be about finding the boundaries between those things, and try to provide the basics (shelter, education, privacy) and let people try to make not 100% fair businesses out of the other things.

If it's so ethical, why "provide" and "let"? Can't you trust people to do the right thing?

If not, how do you know it is in fact the right thing?

If you prescribe and enforce your ethics, I think you're wandering close to another definition of politics.

Because there are people with behavior that do not conform to the agreed upon norms.

My ethics? I never said mine.

And yes, there are inherent dangers (like tyranny of the majority), but there are trivial ethical issues where there is no good solution for allowing the [or any] minority to self-determine. (Like rules regarding sex with children, just to throw in the classic think of the children. But of course the age of consent is not a magical line somehow creating an overnight transformative event for every resident of that state.)