>
> I don't see how imposing equal incomes is at all
> unfair.
>
> Carl
>
Whats' the point of it, though?
John was worried about socierty being destabilized through resentment of inequalities. I agree that is a legitimate worry. A society whose institutions or operations produce opposition that destabilizes it is prima facie unjust. We see, however, that there is a lot of tolerance of inequalities far more extreme that anything any of us would regard as acceptable. The resentment and anger John and all of us see around us are not obviously traceable to envy about the incomes of others.
You might argue that equal incomes -- I presume you accept here a money economy with some sort of common measure of the value of goods and services, otherwise equal incomes makes no sense -- anyway, that equal incomes is the baseline and departure from it must be justified. I'm not sure whay we should accept this, however, or if we should, why the equality is just the starting point. If the idea that everyone is entitled to equal concern and respect, it is not obvious to me that giving them equal amounts of money or stuff is the propert wsay to express this.
This is I particularly pointed if you believeas I do, but as John and may you do not, in a principle of rewards at least partially according to contribution. There are two reasons to support the idea that those who _can_ contribute more, and do, should get more up to a certain point. One is that their contributions create entitlements to more money or goods by virtue of desert: this is in fact the intuition that is (in my view imperfectly) captured in the labor theory of property that Mike B likes so much.
The second idea is that rewqard according to contribution provides incentives for more contributions, as well as tools for social management. People will work more if they think their efforts are rewarded, and they are less likely to resent the free-riding of others if they think that the free riders will get less. In addition such incentives can help direct people into needed activities -- want more teachers, pay 'em more.
These are reasons to think that equality is not the baseline, or, if it is the baseline, then departures from it are permitted or even required by justice. It is unjust to deny people what the deserves as the fruits of their labors, and unjust or at least imprudent to abandon a system of effective incentives.
It seems far more important to me that people have _enough_ than that they have "the same." In fact the two goals may conflict. One might equality at a very low level that is insuffient, or, inequality that, because of incentives and sensible labor allocation, provides "enough." If everyone has a fairly cushy satndards of living, whatever that means after the debatesa re done about SUVs and tract houses in the 'burbs, but anyway a roof over their heads, food on the table, clothes in their back, decent medical care, you know, the usual stuff, plus enough for a reasomnable amount of amenities -- travel, music, philosophy books, sex toys, vintage pens, HD motorcycles, Steinways, computer games -- then why should anyone care if someone has mnore then they do?
I hasten to add that we all agree that there are kinds and degrees of inequality that are unacceptable for other reasons. Wealth on the level of Bill Gates or even the Bushes comes with power that distorts democratic processes, and therefore is unjust. But very large extremes of wealth are not per se objectionable. The wealth that, say, Barry Bonds or Harrison Ford has does not give them significant social power, even if it is counted in the tens of millions. We might want to tax it away in any event to avoid having to figure our which millionaires have power and which do not.
The long and short of it is that I don't see that a demands for strict material equality is required by justice or copmmon sense, and that, on the contrary, some and even considerable inequality is compatible with and may be required by justice.
Please note that none of this argument depends on my view, controversial only in the wolder shores of the left, and regarded as totally obvious everywhere else, that markets are required for a modern economy, and that these create necessary inequality as part of their functioning. I believe that, but the points raised above apply to a totalled planned economy with no markets.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com