>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Justin wrote:
> > I think socialists have to return to Marx's perspective on this and give
>up
> > on the bourgeois idea that equality of incomes is important. Marx didn't
> > think so. He was right, too.
> >
> > jks
>
>Spoken more like a consequentialist than an egalitarian. Don't you think
>equality of income has some weight due to principles of distributive
>fairness?
>
>-- Luke
>
Marx rejected egalitarianism for nonconsequentialist reasons. One can be an egalitarian for consequ reasons or others, and a nonegal, likewise. The positions cross classify. You would hate, I mean absolutely hate, my reasons--the incentive stuff, from rawls, no consequentialist, is the only part that even has echoes of consequ. Anyway, I am sure everyone else is utterly bored by this discussion.
Do I think that equality of income has any prior weight for any reason? No. But I think that if there is a principle adopted it has to9 have some justification. Do I think there is a baseline? Maybe: minimal adequacy. Everyone gets enough. That won't be the same for each. Beyond that, it's a complicated story.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx