I intentionally chose a provocative title (knowing the left-leanings of AF membership) to draw attention so please do not take offence based on the title alone. However, I think the issue raised by the following quote speaks to a very real inconsistency in the way the issue is discussed. If income inequality is a problem (I'm not sure as noted below) then the remedy proposed by left-wing commentators is not only itself problematic but potentially worse. Here is the money quote:
You can read the full article here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/equality.html
For a while I have been vacillating on the current issue of income inequality. The fact that overwhelming wealth has been concentrated into an extremely small group of individuals is something I find disturbing. At the same time, I'm not sure how my life would be different were that not the case. I certainly believe that average citizens have unprecedented access markets and audiences - more than any other time in human history. By culture and temperament I value liberty more highly than material equality - at least once a people have achieved a basic level of sustenance and security. The author also did not treat much of longevity and how advances in technology would produce what I believe would be an even more odious kind of inequality. Despite difference of wealth and power, those of more common stock could at least take some consolation that death comes to all - from kings to peasants. I'm curious about how others feel.
(hat tip: maverick philosopher)
Quote:"Since men value power and prestige as much as the possession of wealth---indeed, these three `goods' cannot be completely separated---it is foolish to seek to establish an equality of wealth on egalitarian grounds. It is foolish first because it will not result in what egalitarians really want. It is foolish also because if we do not let men compete for money, they will compete all the more for power; and whereas the possession of wealth by another man does not hurt me, unless I am made vulnerable by envy, the possession of power by another is Inherently dangerous; and furthermore if we are to maintain a strict equality of wealth we need a much greater apparatus of state to secure it and therefore a much greater inequality of power. Better have bloated plutocrats than omnipotent bureaucrats."
You can read the full article here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/equality.html
For a while I have been vacillating on the current issue of income inequality. The fact that overwhelming wealth has been concentrated into an extremely small group of individuals is something I find disturbing. At the same time, I'm not sure how my life would be different were that not the case. I certainly believe that average citizens have unprecedented access markets and audiences - more than any other time in human history. By culture and temperament I value liberty more highly than material equality - at least once a people have achieved a basic level of sustenance and security. The author also did not treat much of longevity and how advances in technology would produce what I believe would be an even more odious kind of inequality. Despite difference of wealth and power, those of more common stock could at least take some consolation that death comes to all - from kings to peasants. I'm curious about how others feel.
(hat tip: maverick philosopher)
