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.