> > I don't see how imposing equal incomes is at all
> > unfair.
> >
> > Carl
>
>Whats' the point of it, though? [Justin]
The point is to maximize justice for all. This is the best route to that.
>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. [Justin]
It is more than just concern and respect it is about maximizing justice and opportunity, real freedom.
>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. [Justin]
I am talking about everyone being entitled to the same thing. Contributions are necessarily going to be unequal by their nature. It is time to stop giving the lions share to the largest lion. It doesn't matter how we define the largest lion, wealth, size, strength, effort, it is all the same. Rewarding the workaholic who has no life other than working 75 hours a week is counterproductive. If all are rewarded equally regardless of effort then persons who are "gifted" with a driven personality will not accumulate more pay (however defined) than those who are not. This prevents them from accumulating power. It is about attempting to create as level a playing field as possible. It is not necessarily true that I deserve more pay for creating more widgets or spending more time creating them. Based only on the fact that you and I exist do we "deserve" the same rewards.
>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. [Justin]
Calvinism always rears its head in this discussion. For you resentment of free-riders trumps resentment of inequality. Why is that? If you have what you need plus the additional "income" that everyone else has why do you care how much they did to "earn" it? Why is concern for eliminating inequality somehow second to your concern that some people need an additional reward for their work? For what it is worth I don't believe that the free-rider problem would be as bad as you seem to envision. In a society very different from our own it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that a sense of belonging, community, and contribution would provide a greater work incentive than the ability to purchase extra widgets.
>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. [Justin]
There are better reasons to assume equality is not just a baseline but a requirement for justice. Providing a just and equitable society for all people isn't incentive enough? You have to have more than someone else in order to be happy? You have to see others "punished" or at least denied maximum freedom for their laziness as an incentive for you to provide? I doubt these things are true but you write as if you believe them.
>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? [Justin]
I can pose the same question in reverse. Why do you care how much another has if you have all your needs met additionally you have no more unmet wants (or the possibility of such anyway) than everyone else? In this system you will have not one bit less than anyone else. Why is this not enough? Why the need for more than someone else? Having a job isn't preferable to you than leaching off the system? Knowing that you are contributing to society through your actions instead of free-riding doesn't provide you with enough incentive to contribute? You need the ability to accumulate more of something, anything, than others have in order to spur you to action? If this isn't the case in your instance (and I assume it isn't) why put yourself on a pedestal and assume other "lesser" folks will en mass do just the thing you profess to dislike? Why won't they dislike it too?
>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. [Justin]
This is incorrect. Wealth does give power. Ford and Bonds do not use their wealth for this end but anyone with greater disposable resources at hand can potentially use those resources to gain an advantage over others. This is unavoidable. It is why inequality should be avoided.
>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.
To imagine justice requires inequality is strange beyond words in my opinion. Even typing it gives me the creeps. We will simply disagree on this point as we have on others.
>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
"Totally obvious everywhere else" is a bit of a stretch but it certainly is the predominant viewpoint. Belief in a dead guy on a stick is pretty common too though so the ubiquitousness of an idea doesn't in and of itself add much. I also believe that contrary to what you have posted your belief in markets, and therefore the inevitability of inequality, colors your perception of this issue. If markets necessarily create inequality then to accept the premise that eliminating inequality is of primary importance in creating a just society means you cannot have markets, an idea you have already ruled out. I disagree that markets necessarily create inequality and incorporating limited market functions into my model will not disrupt it to the point of making it unworkable. The necessity of limited markets to make it work is still open to debate in my mind.
John Thornton
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0504-0, 01/25/2005 Tested on: 1/26/2005 10:03:20 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com