Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site parcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!parcvax!hibbert From: hibbert@parcvax.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: freedom, democracy, etc Message-ID: <138@parcvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 16:13:53 EST Article-I.D.: parcvax.138 Posted: Sat Feb 9 16:13:53 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 12:42:24 EST References: <630@wucs.UUCP>, <452@whuxl.UUCP> <4982@utzoo.UUCP> <461@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Xerox PARC Lines: 75 Quotes are from Tim Sevener. > tim sevener whuxl!orb > Most people's sense of justice contains the notion [of] equality > of results [which] 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. I only agree with this principle when playing formal games (without chance) in which playing the same strategy against the same opponent should result in the same outcome. In the real world there are *no* equal outcomes and lots of external factors act to change the results. In any exchange between people, both parties must consent. If two makers of widgets both want to sell to you, it doesn't matter how similar their effort *or* *product*, you can only choose one to buy from. > 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. I think this translates to: Rawle's principle of justice implies (to sevener): if allowing incomes to differ (allowing some to rise more than others) causes *all* income to rise then such inequality can be justified. I would say instead: If the only way to make all incomes the same is to lower them all to the lowest level, then requiring such equality is wrong. In other words, allowing people to better themselves is acceptable as long as it doesn't worsen (absolutely not relatively) the condition of others. Sevener seems to be interested in making sure that noone should get an advantage unless that advantage helps everyone, rather than in ensuring that the advantage doesn't hurt anyone. > 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. My major problem with the (unstated) analysis of inherited wealth represented here is explained by a simple change of point of view. Sevener and his ilk see inherited wealth as an unearned benefit that some get that gives them an unfair start in life. I look at it as an important part of the benefactor's right to do with her earned property as she sees fit. In order to get rid of this "unfair advantage" you have to restrict pepole from giving their wealth to some of the people they would like to help. (I admit that some wealthy people came by their riches immorally (usually by exploiting some government-granted monopoly powers). However, I've heard no suggestions for redressing this inequity that wouldn't also take rightly gained wealth from some. usually those who wish to take from the rich don't believe there is any rightfully earned wealth.) Chris Hibbert reply to: ucbvax!hplabs!parcvax!hibbert or hibbert.pa@xerox.arpa P.S. until 5 months ago I was grkermit!chris, it's good to be back to the net. I'm glad to see that Nat Howard (inmet!nrh) is still at it, and that JoSH has come over from ARPA to write some longer diatribes than are possible as the moderator of the poli-sci-digest.