I would like to submit to discussion a different interpretation to the situation you have been talking about:
You were saying (and with very good arguments) that we should not worry about inequality caused by risk-seeking individuals, for example, when they decide to become entrepreneurs. But we could agree that, sometimes, being a risk-seeking individual may have more to do with your personal context than with a random assignation among the members of a society: it is more probable for you to be risk-seeking IF YOU CAN AFFORD to be risk-seeking than if a failure means to lose everything you and your family have (or even more).
In consequence, risk-seeking individuals who are becoming successful entrepreneurs may be coming from social positions which already had better opportunities (not necessarily from the top 1%, of course), simply because they have the back up to try and fail several times (or to wait enough time until their idea becomes a million dollar idea). Of course there may be outliers, but that doesn´t invalidate the argument.
In that case, we would be perpetuating inequality by not worrying about it when it arises by risk-seeking choices, don´t you think?
And I think the key is in the kind of society we have in mind: if we are thinking in a developed society where all citizens have, more or less, the same opportunities (like de Scandinavian countries, for example), then we should take the attitude you are suggesting. But if we are thinking in a society like ours (the Mexican society), then maybe we should think better where does that risk-seeking attitude is coming from in the first place.