Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: freedom, democracy, etc Message-ID: <461@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 09:19:10 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.461 Posted: Thu Jan 31 09:19:10 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 00:27:03 EST References: <630@wucs.UUCP>, <452@whuxl.UUCP> <4982@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs Lines: 80 > From Laura Creighton: > Here goes again... > > You have some distribution in mind which you think is ``fair''. So do I. > We compare notes and find that they aren't the same. Now we have a problem. There are two questions involved in the distribution problem, as Wayne Faust properly pointed out: 1)whether a given distributive *method* is fair 2)whether a given distributive *result* is fair To an extent this boils down to questions of equality of opportunity and equality of results. There is really no question about what constitutes equality: it is equality, period. There is no *problem* involved here in theoretical terms: if one is dividing a pie equally then one is dividing a pie equally (equality of results),period. If a race goes from point A to point B for one person, it also goes from point A to point B for another person (equality of opportunity), period. What's the problem? In practical terms there are obvious problems in achieving such equality and the amount of effort which should be expended to do so. There are also problems in defining just what constitutes equality of results. Most people's sense of justice contains the notion that equality of results means that results will be equal for equal work or effort. It does not mean that results will be completely equal *regardless* of work or effort. On the other hand recognition that results should be roughly equal with respect to equal efforts does not imply the present enormous inequities in wealth or income distribution. Given that every person has 168 hours per week to work, and with sleep and eating a maximum of 100 hours a week to work, the maximum discrepecancy based on equality of results for amount work would be about 100 to 1. The present income distribution is many times more unequal than that. But there is a further problem here. This implies (as a poster properly pointed out) a static view of income and wealth. However the amount of income and wealth *can* be increased and has been greatly increased in the industrial age. If we take Rawle's principle of justice as the standard: "The society which I would prefer if I did not know what my position would be", then if *everyone's* income is increased because one person's income is increased *more* than everyone else's then *if* inequality increases *everyone's* income then such inequality can be justified. But this point must be proven for specific cases of inequality. At this point the problem becomes one of facts and economics, and not simply one of theory. Now let us ask if the present distribution of wealth and income is just on these terms. First off, I don't believe that the present system of inherited wealth can be considered anything close to "equality of opportunity". Nor have I seen evidence that such a system leads to more economic growth. Attempts to wipe out Public Schools will have even worse effects on equality of opportunity- the wealthy will go to fantastic schools, while the poor, whose primary problem right now is lack of education, will go to schools in worse conditions than at present. Not only will this lead to inequality of opportunity, it will also lead to a *decline* in economic growth. Earlier I pointed out that the economist Dennison found that increased education and skills were as responsible for economic growth as increased physical capital. Will this be *less* true in an increasingly technological age? Do the present vast inequalities of wealth and income make everyone better off in terms of actual results of this system? When we have people starving, unemployed and uneducated I do not think so. While I do think that reducing inequalitites to zero would stagnate or even regress the overall level of economic growth, I also think that there is some level of distribution that satisfies the needs of justice *and* the economy. Children who go hungry not only suffer pain, they also suffer brain damage from malnutrition which permanently affects their ability to work and have an equal opportunity. At the *very* minimum it would seem that justice demands that children be fed. But I also think that human beings in general should get some part of society's bounty to be fed. If they desire the other many consumer goods in our society then they should work for them. But it seems that some minimum should be provided to all. Dealing with the current inequalities of wealth and consequent political power is another problem which has no easy answers. I have many more thoughts on this but I have to stop here. tim sevener whuxl!orb p.s. sorry if I impugned your own commitment to help those less fortunate. Such voluntary action can only be commended!