There is a supreme difference between seeing that inequality exists, and doing at least some remedial redistribution; and seeing that inequality exists, and heaping more wealth on the already wealthy from the pockets of the poor "Because it's natural".
Sadly, Dunning-Kruger types get to vote as well. I wouldn't have it any other way, but we sure as hell need to improve education and the mass media then.
No, I don't agree with this idea of achieving completely equal distribution of wealth. I do think that it would reduce social tension and create more participation and dignity, but that would be at the cost of removing incentives to innovate and work harder. Some large projects, like medical research, require capital accumulation to execute them. And someone has to enforce equal distribution somehow, which means we would also have a power monopoly problem again.
Besides, you are saying that it is human nature to try to dominate, but you think we should override this tendency through policy. Why? It wouldn't surprise me if our tendency to compete for resources had to do with the very fact that they are limited. Consider the apples example. If we only had 100 apples to share, distributing them equally means that every person can eat one apple. But what if we didn't have any more food for the next days? Then all people could starve in those coming days. If you don't distribute the apples completely equally, it wouldn't be fair, but some people could stay alive for a couple more days if they store the excess apples for later.
Can't we perhaps resort to a middle ground? Trying to reduce inequality but not removing it altogether? What if we could make sure that it's only the people who work hard who get more wealth?
Belloc didn't say that there must be equal distribution of wealth, he foresaw many difficulties in such a plan but he believed that people need to have a stake in the game in order to feel part of it and not take up arms to overturn it.
People work hard when they feel it is necessary or worthwhile. I worked in hospitals for years, we were all on standard salaries, the difference between a junior MO and a senior staff consultant was about 4 times after tax and super (pensions). Nobody complained, everybody worked to their limit. As for equitable distribution, that's what the tax office is for but it needs to be transparent. There are many ways to do this without putting everybody's bank balance on the internet.
As for fair distribution of food, the world produces more than enough for everybody to have a good diet but it is unevenly distributed. Some people live on steak and champagne while others sift through piles of rubbish for enough to eat. I have seen women in India scouring along the railway lines picking up individual grains of rice where they spilled from wagons, in order to feed their families.
I agree: reduce inequality to manageable levels but it will never be eliminated entirely, and I'm not sure it's either necessary or desirable.
There is a supreme difference between seeing that inequality exists, and doing at least some remedial redistribution; and seeing that inequality exists, and heaping more wealth on the already wealthy from the pockets of the poor "Because it's natural".
Sadly, Dunning-Kruger types get to vote as well. I wouldn't have it any other way, but we sure as hell need to improve education and the mass media then.
No, I don't agree with this idea of achieving completely equal distribution of wealth. I do think that it would reduce social tension and create more participation and dignity, but that would be at the cost of removing incentives to innovate and work harder. Some large projects, like medical research, require capital accumulation to execute them. And someone has to enforce equal distribution somehow, which means we would also have a power monopoly problem again.
Besides, you are saying that it is human nature to try to dominate, but you think we should override this tendency through policy. Why? It wouldn't surprise me if our tendency to compete for resources had to do with the very fact that they are limited. Consider the apples example. If we only had 100 apples to share, distributing them equally means that every person can eat one apple. But what if we didn't have any more food for the next days? Then all people could starve in those coming days. If you don't distribute the apples completely equally, it wouldn't be fair, but some people could stay alive for a couple more days if they store the excess apples for later.
Can't we perhaps resort to a middle ground? Trying to reduce inequality but not removing it altogether? What if we could make sure that it's only the people who work hard who get more wealth?
Belloc didn't say that there must be equal distribution of wealth, he foresaw many difficulties in such a plan but he believed that people need to have a stake in the game in order to feel part of it and not take up arms to overturn it.
People work hard when they feel it is necessary or worthwhile. I worked in hospitals for years, we were all on standard salaries, the difference between a junior MO and a senior staff consultant was about 4 times after tax and super (pensions). Nobody complained, everybody worked to their limit. As for equitable distribution, that's what the tax office is for but it needs to be transparent. There are many ways to do this without putting everybody's bank balance on the internet.
As for fair distribution of food, the world produces more than enough for everybody to have a good diet but it is unevenly distributed. Some people live on steak and champagne while others sift through piles of rubbish for enough to eat. I have seen women in India scouring along the railway lines picking up individual grains of rice where they spilled from wagons, in order to feed their families.
I agree: reduce inequality to manageable levels but it will never be eliminated entirely, and I'm not sure it's either necessary or desirable.