Together with my answers. These are the sorts of things you get asked when it becomes known that you’re a bit left-leaning and have been putting up posts about The Spirit Level. They’re also the sorts of things you might hear coming from your parents or other family members. As they so often say (at least in my case) it’s likely that my views will change over time; if and when they do, and if this post is still up, I might make some revisions. But for now, let’s see how well I do in avoiding the grosser errors and cliches. First, a well known quotation from the autobiography of J. S. Mill:
… it occurred to me to put the question directly to myself: “Suppose that all your objects in life were realised; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be completely effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?” And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, “No!” At this my heart sank within me: the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down.
And onto the questions:
(1) Why can’t you just accept that people will always be different from each other?
I do accept that. What I want is more social equality.
(2) You should have said. Define social equality, then.
At a minimum, social equality is two things. First, it’s a situation where every person has equal access to natural resources, regardless of circumstances and ability (out and out criminals excepted). Second, social equality is a situation where a person isn’t obliged to someone else simply because of their position in a hierarchy. Typically a position in a hierarchy is established by wealth, but not always.
(3) But isn’t it obvious that we’ll never have social equality? It’s just not in human nature. Even if it were, it’s just not practical.
Seeking relative advantage may be part of human nature, but it’s not the whole of it. Lots of people want to act in certain ways but don’t, because they see how that would make things worse. And wanting equality is part of human nature: some societies are measurably more equal than others. Not only that, my own society (roughly: Britain) has been more equal in the past. More equal societies are possible.
(4) But why is equality better?
More equal societies seem to be happier, healthier and more at ease. I’d like that for myself and the people around me.
(5) You can talk! America is much more equal than Britain! What about the House of Lords, Prince Charles, stuff like that?
Athough equality in Britain is currently declining, Britain remains measurably more equal than America, despite having a monarchy and aristocratic titles. And other European societies and Japan are measurably more equal than Britain.
(6) But in America, anyone can make it to the top. There’s equality of opportunity.
On the contrary: social mobility and equality go together. Britain has measurably more social mobility than America. And other European societies and Japan are more mobile than Britain.
(6a) No way!
Way.
(7) Why don’t you move (to one of those places) then? If you did, you’d see it’s not all roses.
That’s a big ask. And no one said anywhere was perfect. What I think is important is this: the fact that more equal societies exist shows that an increase in equality is possible; at least, this is what I believe. You don’t have to want to live in those places for this to be true.
(8) I think you just resent people who are richer than you.
Yes I do, but in the same way that I resent people who drive too quickly in my street, or push to the front of queues. In a similar way, grabbing wealth is antisocial, and so I’d like to see less of it.
(9) But you’re privileged as well. Aren’t you a hypocrite?
By definition, an increase in social equality is a change in relations between everyone. It’s not something you can do on your own. I’m not a hypocrite in that I’m very willing to go along with policies that make us into a less unequal society.
(10) But what have you got against success?
Nothing: I try to be successful myself. Social inequality isn’t a requirement for high achievement.
(11) Well, I’ve never heard of you, so I’m going to assume that (a) you don’t try very hard and (b) you’re wrong. Real achievers come from a competitive environment where large rewards can be had: that’s what motivates excellence. Look at all the Nobel prizes that have gone to Americans.
I’m not much of a historian, but I think that if you wanted to show something here, you’d have to account for the effects in the twentieth century of two large scale hot wars and one cold war. And if you think the pursuit of wealth is a great motivator, how do you explain this?
(12) Well seeing as you bring history into things, look at communism. Equality has been tried before: look what happened.
I think you’re looking at some bad examples and ignoring plenty of good examples.
(13) Yeah, but let’s face it: the 1970s were dreadful. Why do you want to take us back there? We don’t want to be some wimpy country again.
The 1970s don’t look so bad to me. I see quite a bit of human flourishing there.
(14) Wilt Chamberlain!
Someone who would have been worse off if his skills had been ruled as generic and so replaceable; a rule which, it seems to me, those at the top of a steep social hierarchy are better able to enforce.
(15) What’s with you?
When I’m doing what I’m good at (or at least, what I like to think I’m good at) I’m fairly happy. When I’m told that my social position is a bad one – I should get a mortgage, buy a house, save to send my future kids to private schools, dress well, own a nice car – I’m not so happy. In fact I find it downright stressful worrying about those things. But even though I don’t have (and currently can’t have) any of those goods, which are all status goods, I seem to live quite well. So what’s with me is this: social hierarchy imposes on my life and makes it worse. I’d like to see some of the edge taken off, so that the stress I do take on, is the stress I want to take on.
(16) Why can’t you just ignore your place in the hierarchy?
It looks as though that’s impossible for a human being. We’re social animals. Try as we might, we can’t help knowing where we stand.
(17) Your problems seem fairly typical. Who’s interested?
Well, it’s certainly not just about me. Don’t you hate it when you see your colleagues pushed around at work because of some dumb hierarchy there? And wouldn’t you like to see more gender equality (on the whole, British women get paid less than British men). Why put up with it?
(18) You’re just a preachy do-gooder. Haven’t you got anything better to do?
Yes. I’m going to do some of those things now.
Talking to yourself again?
Why be unhappy/stressed when you’re told that you “should get a mortgage, buy a house, save to send my future kids to private schools, dress well”…?
Pity anyone who fuels their self-value our of possessing materials. It’s a trap, not a route to happiness. So don’t fall for it.
PS nice post
PPS re: point 2. WHy just ‘natural’ resources? What about healthcare, education? We call it a ‘fair go’ in Australia – equality of opportunity. Everyone should have it. Not everyone will use it. Deal with it.
Very nice post. I am glad that no one has ever asked me these questions, but if they ever do I’ll be prepared, thanks to you.
And of course you are absolutely right about America — and it has been growing more unequal every year.
Everybody loves to talk about the social Europe these days. Despite living (studying and then working) since many years in a large and “social” European country i still fail to see the “social”. Europe is very social insofar we are talking about the omnipresence of the social hierarchy that you are born or thrown into. In fact social hierarchies do matter in Europe much more then they do in America.
Well.. if we take into account immigrants. Yes.. I know, their integration or the lack thereof are Europe’s dirty little secret but they make in many countries up to 10% of the population which is no joke and in big cities people with a migration background can reach up to 25% of the population.
Especially interesting is to have a look at these recent statistics of highly qualified people with a migration background and their integration in the job market. And this is just for getting warm (or should i say cold). You can expect the same or an even larger level of discrimination in all educational levels before even getting to the job market of the highly qualified workforce. So actually what you see in those statistics are the fraction of people who are strong/lucky enough to go though a discriminatory educational system. Not to speak about the social networks that immigrants don’t even dare to think of due to their unimpressive social stance. Frankly, I wouldn’t want my children to live in a place where even educational and professional achievements do not make you immune from social discrimination. Most of those self-respecting highly specialized immigrants I know are actually planning or already have left for America/Canada.
In Germany, a respectable and large social country, the overall link between your family’s education and your own’s is remarkably strong among OECD countries.
So please leftish American’s
don’t ideolize Europe. Don’t make it what it is not just because it has suddenly become hip among leftish circles in America. Even if you may play with stereotypes it is important not to take such kind of “social” as an inspiring model for America itself. Actually, all American immigrants in Europe have to do is wait until the Euro rises to 2.5 dollars 
Then they might experience a fraction of the discrimination their asiatic, eastern european or african peers are subject to.
Pingback: Why I don’t value equality » Ape Man » Blog Archive
How much equality is enough? Or is more always better?
Pingback: The Reticulator » How much equality is enough?
> First, it’s a situation where every person has
> equal access to natural resources, regardless
> of circumstances and ability (out and out
> criminals excepted).
What exactly is a natural resource? do you mean water, fields, trees? do you mean health care, clothing, wealth?
If I work hard and generate wealth and with that wealth acquire land, would not the principle that “every person has equal access to natural resources, regardless of circumstances and ability” would require that what I own is *taken from me against my will and given to others*?
Or do you mean an arrangement where there is no private ownership? or where private ownership is limited to an equal share? what *is* an equal share? if I work hard and generate lots of wealth from my share, would it then be that I am *not permitted* to buy or rent other people’s shares (so that equally is maintained)?
My view in this – all contracts must be voluntary and well-informed; the except is in self-defence.
If equally requires the imposition of non-voluntary contracts (e.g. coercion) then it is unethical. No one has any business ordering me or anyone else around.
Why just ‘natural’ resources? What about healthcare, education?
Sure. I’ve given a very thin account of equality: there’s more to be said about it. I think one way it might be approached is this: we may not have obligation through our position in a hierarchy, but we may have obligations on other counts. That is: we should take care of people who are sick, etc.
I have to say I like the Australian expression ‘fair go’.
How much equality is enough? Or is more always better?
More than we currently have. It’d be hard for me (or anyone else) to say what is always better.
@Blank Xavier: all contracts must be voluntary and well-informed; the except is in self-defence.
What about democracy, BX? If a society votes to – for example – offer good education or healthcare to everyone in it, regardless of wealth, is this coercion? Or democracy?
Or do you only follow those laws which suit you personally? Just asking…
If I work hard and generate wealth and with that wealth acquire land, would not the principle that “every person has equal access to natural resources, regardless of circumstances and ability” would require that what I own is *taken from me against my will and given to others*?
OK, so you buy some land. It looks as though there are two ways in which you can come to own land.
(1) The land is unowned (i.e. it’s land in common). It seems reasonable to assume that all land was once this way; arguably, some still is.
(2) Someone is willing to sell you some land.
If (1), then I’ll assume that your ‘hard work’ and ‘wealth’ mainly consists of putting fences up. I’ll take it you have some self-generated means to do this. Even so, I’d argue that you still have to ask yourself this question: does my taking control of this land deprive others of their ambitions for this land? (That ambition might, of course, include keeping the land in common.) Will they be worse off than they would be in an arrangement “in which their interests are fairly attended to” (quoting Kymlicka, whose argument I’m following).
If (2), then I’d argue that you should be able to show that the seller of the land was him or herself able to satisfactorily answer the question above: is this acquisition legitimate?
Or do you mean an arrangement where there is no private ownership?
I think it’s well within our powers to modify rights of ownership. However, I’m not arguing for mass confiscations or anything so radically socially disruptive, unless you count taxation as confiscation (and that’s an arrangement already in place and so not, I’d argue, disruptive). Inheritance tax in particular is a good institution, and I think there should be more of it.
Charlie sez:
“More than we currently have. It’d be hard for me (or anyone else) to say what is always better.”
History has shown the horrifying results when people keep pursuing equality with no other restrictions on their behavior. I was hoping to get you to explain what limitations you would place on your campaign for more equality. For example, would you sacrifice political equality in order to get more equality in material possessions?
History has shown the horrifying results when people keep pursuing equality with no other restrictions on their behavior.
Well, now I think you’re somewhere between a (12) type question and an ad hominem. First: political equality is implied (or at least strongly hinted at) by a presumption against obligations that arise from a social hierarchy. Second: I think you’re not seeing the point of my previous answer: I’m arguing from a here and a now. There are plenty of legal and moral inhibitions already in place. In the democracy which we have (more or less) it’s perfectly fine to argue for one thing, or for a few things. You do this hoping that things will change, but you don’t expect radical change overnight. Instead, you watch how it goes. If and when things do change, you can carry on campaigning, or you can stop, or you can even start arguing for a reversal.
** (16) Why can’t you just ignore your place in the hierarchy?
It looks as though that’s impossible for a human being. We’re social animals. Try as we might, we can’t help knowing where we stand. **
Reality is much more nuanced than this. There are some people who are completely beholden to social status; others who are much less so. Perhaps there are people who have a close to zero attachment to social status.
The big issue is the relationship between wealth and self-esteem. I think it is desirable to create a society wherein the acquisition and possession of wealth is de-emphasized (though not quashed altogether). There is no reason a person of modest means can’t feel themselves to be a worthy individual. In fact, I know many such people.
> > @Blank Xavier: all contracts must be voluntary and
> > well-informed; the except is in self-defence.
> What about democracy, BX? If a society votes to – for
> example – offer good education or healthcare to
> everyone in it, regardless of wealth, is this
> coercion? Or democracy?
Consider what it means, to say ‘democracy votes for it’. What it means is that one group of people, using the democractic process of a voted majority, have enforced on another group of people an involuntary contract.
If the State votes to provide good healthcare to all, it is voting to take wealth from all – whether they wanted that healthcare or not – and buy healthcare for them, and give it to them.
That wealth that was taken is *my private property*. The State might well want to give good healthcare to all – and good education – and all the best chances in the world to have a great life, etc, etc, etc – but if it involves *taking by force that which belongs to others* then it is to me profoundly unethical.
How would you feel if I took your wealth and spent it on what I thought was good for you?
You might say – it’s different, it’s a mass vote; the population as a whole voted, and we do what the majority decides.
Why is it any different if one person decides to take something from you, than if a million people decide to take something from you?
Remember – you’re not given a choice *not* to be part of this. The choice of *not* being involved, not being affected by that vote, is not available. You are not free to live your own life; right from the word go, the involuntary contract of being part of this democracy is forced upon you.
All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed; except in self-defence. Freedom means that every contract you undertake is done voluntarily. Democracy as we know it is unfree, because we have no choice about whether or not we are part of democracy.
*my private property*
Or the Coca-Cola company’s.
Democracy as we know it is unfree, because we have no choice about whether or not we are part of democracy.
Surely a better way to think about this is to consider all of the things that restrict your freedom, and then to ask: what’s the best overall arrangement for moderating those negative restrictions? A few people can go and live in cabins in the hills: they perhaps won’t affect me much. But the fact is that we live on a planet that supports upwards of six billion people. Their choices and ways of living are likely to affect me, even if happened that most of them claimed adherence to some sort of minimalist self-sufficiency.
right from the word go, the involuntary contract of being part of this democracy is forced upon you.
To be frank…so what? Your whole point follows from your chosen premises – if you decide that all taxation is ipso facto theft, then the rest follows along. But the rest of the argument doesn’t contribute anything; it dresses up what is just assertion on your part. This isn’t an argument, it’s just a restatement of your prejudices.
Also, if all taxation is theft, what about property? What about the relations of labour and capital? I mean, simply denying the legitimacy of any form of government whatsoever is a pretty strong and extraordinary claim.
Not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but in a Bayesian sense, if you accept some extraordinary claims you ought to at least consider other extraordinary claims – expanding the possibility space to include minarchy implies, in the absence of other data, that it should also include anarchy, communism, fascism, etc.
If you think the state is fundamentally illegitimate, you ought also to doubt the legitimacy of property, capitalism, etc as well – if you’re being rational.
Pingback: that’s not noise, that’s the sound of freedom – oh, by the way, I voted Libertarian « Alternate Seat of TYR
@BX, you didn’t answer my question directly, but I think we all get the drift. You don’t accept democratically mandated legislation if it doesn’t suit you. Go find a desert island and establish you’re own kingdom of one – you’ll be happier, I promise. Other than that, you’ll be alone.
_Well, now I think you’re somewhere between a (12) type question and an ad hominem_
My question in no way resembles an ad hominem. I know the names of many rhetorical devices and argument categories, but I don’t know them by number. I expect you could communicate better if you’d go by name.
What I asked is more like a reductio ad absurdum. It’s a good way to bring out other factors that need to be in the discussion.
_First: political equality is implied (or at least strongly hinted at) by a presumption against obligations that arise from a social hierarchy._
Historically, some of the most extreme attempts at material and social equality have been made at the expense of political equality. But it’s a complex relationship. The reason I have any interest at all in reducing material inequality is because it tends to lead to an imbalance of social and political power.
_Second: I think you’re not seeing the point of my previous answer: I’m arguing from a here and a now. There are plenty of legal and moral inhibitions already in place. In the democracy which we have (more or less) it’s perfectly fine to argue for one thing, or for a few things. You do this hoping that things will change, but you don’t expect radical change overnight. Instead, you watch how it goes. If and when things do change, you can carry on campaigning, or you can stop, or you can even start arguing for a reversal._
But how do we know we need a change in the here and now? All you said is that you want more equality. If you could tell us some of the factors that would make you say, “enough already,” maybe there would be some basis for a vision to be shared with others.
Mathew,
Your question was not directed at me. But since you don’t think it was answered very directly, I will oblige you.
All acts of government are coercion regardless of whether the government is approved by the majority or not.
That does not mean that all acts of coercion by the government are wrong.
Almost nobody objects when the government throws people into jail for murder. But some people do object when the government throws people in jail for selling weed.
But both acts are democratically approved (at least here in the US). And they are both acts of coercion. But that has does not necessarily mean that they are both moral actions.
You used “nice” examples like education as if there could be nothing coercion like about them. But single mother near me lost her land because she could not pay her school taxes (in the US schools are generally funded by property taxes). She and her husband separated and she could not work because of a bad accident.
If a sheriff coming to your house with a gun on his hip to throw you out so it can be sold to pay taxes in not coercion, I don’t know what is.
(That did not wind up happening, though they gave her notice that it was going to. What did happen is that she sold her land at distressed prices to another neighbor (he got a real deal) and she paid off what she owed so that she could save the house).
By the same token, Government uses coercion to enable people to enjoy the right of private property and enforceable contracts. If my neighbor had skimped on the mortgage payments instead of the tax payments, the Sheriff still would have showed up to kick her out. And if my other neighbor had tried to take the land by force, the Sheriff would have stopped him.
All this is obvious stuff. But we should never forget that coercion is a staple part of human interaction. Areas without governments tend to have just as much if not more coercion then areas with governments. See Somalia.
The first job for a good government is to monopolize the right to use coercion to itself (except for the right to self defense). It does not do much good for a government to say “you have the right to free speech” if you don’t dare open your mouth for fear that your neighbor will shoot you.
But assuming the government accomplish that, the question is what should the government use its ability to use force for?
Just because something is democratically approved does not make it morally right.
One of the worst things that this nation has ever done happened during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. He broke legally binding treaties and forced native Americans off their land so that white Americans could take it.
It was one of the things that made him wildly popular and it was very democratic.
This rant occasioned by the fact that I hate when people use democratic as if it was interchangeable for moral and supersedes any other objections to a course of action.
Democracy is not perfect, to be sure. Tyranny of the majority is a staple of it, and there doesn’t seem to be an antidote.
However, all other forms of government that have been tried are probably worse – at least for large complex societies.
That is one of the crucial aspects of human society – scale changes everything. When you have millions of people interacting, you have to deal with a far more complex system than when trying to organize a community of a few hundred.
The ultimate response to any ultra-libertarian argument is: go live on your own or with other like-minded people. The claim that the government steals your wealth (in the form of taxes and other restrictions) is predicated on the false assumption that you alone are 100% responsible for creating that wealth.
@Ape Man, I don’t think I ever said that democratic societies don’t include coercion. I was just suggesting that citizens in a democratic society should respect its laws, even if they don’t agree with them. That’s the deal.
I agree that ‘democratically voted upon’ ‘morally right’. What is morally right is a matter of personal opinion, which is exactly why all systems other than democracies are generally worse places to live for the majority of their inhabitants.
As Robert Dudeck and I both point out, if you don’t want to live in a democracy, go live somewhere else. You’re free to leave.
If you want a government to define what is morally right, Iran might suit – they’ve got pretty clear ideas about prescribing moral behaviour. And about coercion, come to think of it.
But if you choose to live in a democracy, then you choose to respect its democratically formulated laws, whether you believe them to be moral or not. In a democracy, fortunately, you are free to try to change these laws. You just have to convince a majority of people that you’re right. And that’s how it should be.
Except that it’s not, of course. There’s a chasm between this fine-minded theory and actual practice.
PS Not all democracies have sheriffs kicking in doors. Thought you should know.
The discussion here is a demonstration of what occurs when we emphasize equality while ignoring its counterpart liberty. Neither is a cause/effect of the other; both are linked in our human condition.
There are times I am less concerned about equality – because the destruction of liberty renders equality meaningless and void.
Democracy is about equal access to political power – whether you are in Europe or the US, it would be hard to take a sober assessment and come up with an evaluation other than democracy is a shell of what it should be – and we are continuing in the wrong direction. We live in a world that calls itself democratic –and it works so hard to call itself democratic, that should tell us that something is fundamentally wrong. When political power is distributed fairly, we don’t need to talk about it – we act and use it and society progresses.
But democracy is not an end in itself – it is a means to liberty and equality – an equality of unequals, where regardless of capabilities and drive and luck, we still insist upon a equal sharing of political power. The democratic process cannot be used to justify the destruction of liberty – if we “vote” to enslave ourselves, then the process is corrupted, not “well that’s part of the rules”. We cannot be blind to the imperfectability of the institutions humans build.
History has shown that people are willing to endure incredible hardships if they believe them to be shared in a fair manner, even when resulting in unequal distributions. At the same time, incredible wealthy (in terms of material) societies have collapsed due not to their ability to produce/accumulate, but because political power is concentrated to the point where liberty is destroyed.
It is no coincidence that in both the US and Europe liberty is being systematically dismantled while political and economic inequality increases.
Focusing on only equality or liberty without continually reminding ourselves of their interconnection results in unproductive debates and failed analyzes. We know better.
Preach it brother!
OMG. The main thought behind this Q&A is “we all should have equally less”. It also says that “just because I can’t have *it*, nobody should”. It should be vice versa, for crying out loud. Everybody can have everything. All you have to do is try. If you do not want to, it is your choice. But your lack of chances and opportunities should NOT mean that the rest of the succesful world should have fewer chances and resources, just so you don’t feel social imbalance. As someone has pointed out, it was called communism and it was a huuuge bummer and no similar “better example” can outweigh that. Calling for social balance is for the socially incompetent and (sometimes even) the lazy.
Everybody can have everything. All you have to do is try. If you do not want to, it is your choice
Do you really believe that? Infinite resources, available to all, if you just have enough Will? If so, I’m sorry, you failed a basic test of seriousness; that’s not an argument, that’s self-help book quackery. You obviously didn’t want to make a serious argument enough!
As someone has pointed out, it was called communism and it was a huuuge bummer and no similar “better example” can outweigh that. Calling for social balance is for the socially incompetent and (sometimes even) the lazy.
Redbaiting and accusing people of “social incompetence” because they disagree with you are not traits of the socially competent.
cool article, cool conversation
Personally I only know this: I feel happier if the persons around me are smilling..
Haven’t read the whole thread yet, but I thought I would throw out some comments to the blogger while I do:
Yes I do, but in the same way that I resent people who drive too quickly in my street, or push to the front of queues. In a similar way, grabbing wealth is antisocial, and so I’d like to see less of it.
As long as wealth is earned without using force or fraud or hurting other people, accumulating it is NOT “antisocial”. In fact, it is what society itself is built on. Legitimate wealth comes from creating value, which creates jobs and in turn increases societal wealth. Look around you – the government didn’t build bridges and roads. Taxpayer wealth – used by the government – did.
Modern society is built on private wealth.
And if you think the pursuit of wealth is a great motivator, how do you explain this?
Sure, people are motivated by things other than money. But all the money spent on those projects had to be confiscated from people who earned it. There is no telling what good that money could have done if left in the hands of the people who earned it – including technological advances and achievements that might have benefitted society and mankind to a greater degree.(This is the “broken window” principle or Bastiat’s principle of the “unseen”.)
I think you’re looking at some bad examples and ignoring plenty of good examples.
True communism and socialism have resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of people.
And note that those ideologies are the ultimate attempt at establishing equality of outcome. And the result? A tiny, highly affluent political and bureaucratic elite with the rest of the population in relative poverty. Economic stagnation. Often starvation. The ultimate in inequality.
What’s instructive about the horrors of communism is that the economy is not a zero-sum game. Redistribution – taking money from the most productive and dividing it among the least productive – weakens and shrinks the economy. So in the end you have somewhat equal slices (except the small political elite, who are quite wealthy) of a greatly diminished pie, so everyone is relatively poor. On the other hand in market-based economies – provided tax rates are low enough and wealth is left in the hands of value creators – the economy is growing and even the smaller slices are bigger (and growing) than the equally small(and stagnating/shrinking) pieces that those in communist economies have.
Bottom line: Redistribution weakens economies and past a certain point stagnates and shrinks economies. It is not the path to equality, unless you want everyone equally poor.(And there will still be a small, wealthy political elite, so even then you will not have true equality.) Lower tax rates – less redistribution – strengthens economies and allows them to grow. This expands economies and raises the standard of living overall so that even the poor are better off.
Robert Dudek-
The ultimate response to any ultra-libertarian argument is: go live on your own or with other like-minded people. The claim that the government steals your wealth (in the form of taxes and other restrictions) is predicated on the false assumption that you alone are 100% responsible for creating that wealth.
Couple problems with this. First, society was created using private wealth – whatever the government has it came from taking private wealth. So the assumption that the government should be entitled to take anything just because they took from private citizens in the past is a false one. When we talk about essential services there is an argument. But the more tax rates rise above that needed for essential services the weaker that argument becomes.
Also, whatever business decided to pay you to create value certainly decided you were worth it, otherwise they wouldn’t have hired you. In that sense you certainly were responsible for the value you created. Same for a businessperson providing a service or selling a product.
“First, society was created using private wealth; whatever the government has it came from taking private wealth”
Really? Was this true in, say, ancient Egypt?
The UK government evolved from the prerogatives of the Crown, originally involving a relationship with the barons whereby they held land for the King, on his behalf.
Real wealth is the wealth of the community; capital is a relationship. The individual just enjoys its usufruct, with a greater or lesser degree of individual control over it according to time and status. This fantasy that wealth is what a private individual obtains by effecting changes in the natural world and bringing the result to market is perhaps understandable in a pioneer context, where people were to some extent self-sufficient at one stage, but the moment questions such as who has a monopoly of legitimate violence, or who ensures that the big river doesn’t break through the levees crop up, property rights become inseperable from the existence of a state. A state that provides an essential service is more than just a service provider.
Great to see the Inequality Issue is burning. It’s hard to tell if some respondents here actually disagree that we need more equality, or are simply concerned about the personal consequences of achieving it. For this debate to really get anywhere we need first to agree on the effects / role of inequality. Then, if we believe we do need a more equal society, have faith in our ability to learn how to do it fairly and sustainably.