Tuesday, October 08, 2013

A defence of income inequality

This is a brief must-read from Aurthur Brooks because it equips us with a basic but just defence of income inequality:

In America we stand for equality. But for the large majority of us, this means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
If you are like most Americans, you believe we all should start at more or less the same place with more or less the same opportunities to succeed in life. But you also believe that, within reason, it's perfectly all right if we end up in different places.
More

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

you believe we all should start at more or less the same place with more or less the same opportunities to succeed in life.

No I don't. Some people have two married parents who love them - who send them to private schools, look after them, feed them properly, give the opportunities to play sport etc. In short: independent citizens.

Many other people have one solo parent on the dole if they're lucky, live in state houses, go to state schools, eat junk food, and the only sport they "play" is mugging people on a saturday night. In short: dependent criminal bludgers

the idea that the state should intervene to ensure that these two people have "more or less the same opportunities to succeed in life" is obscene.

Gekko said...

Honestly, while an interesting read it won't convince anyone anytime soon. It basically just says "since 70% believe this, it must carry more weight than what the 30% believe". That's an assertion, not an argument, and "it's not fair" is the same line the other side run so that won't wash either.
The arguments against income equality are strong but complex (delving into property rights and against positive rights etc), while those for it have a naive simplistic appeal to many. Arguments such as that put forward by the author simply play into the hands of the equality cause.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Any column that takes but a minute to read will, by necessity, generalise. For me the appeal lies in the comparison of equality rights in spheres other than income eg justice and electoral. There are inherent equality rights that transcend issues of fairness. Income isn't one.

Anonymous said...

For me the appeal lies in the comparison of equality rights in spheres other than income eg justice and electoral. There are inherent equality rights that transcend issues of fairness. Income isn't one.

once again: equality by definition is leftism.

There are no inherent or inalienable "equality rights". There just aren't. There is no inherent right to "equal justice" or "equal access to justice" or some such foolishness - neither is there any inherent right to vote, or a right or each vote to have the same value.

Any and all equality arguments are leftist - that is, ultimately communism - pure and simple.

As the old Anglican hymn puts it:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.


Equality, and concerns related to equality, such as social mobility, are always leftist.

Anonymous said...

The arguments against income equality are strong but complex

Oh what rubbish. Given say 6,000 years of human civilisation, there has only be any attempt at "equality" in the last 200-odd years, and only sustained attempts at equality in the last century.

Equality will prove to be a crazy 20th century delusion, as the natural order of things reasserts itself.