15 ms·
I agree with you but would like to add some remark about "fairness". This is a very broad term that encompasses many different issues. Principles of resource di
by JohnStrange 9y ago
I agree with you but would like to add some remark about "fairness". This is a very broad term that encompasses many different issues. Principles of resource distribution are just one aspect of it.
I have never met anyone in my life who argued for a completely egalitarian society but for some people, a more egalitarian society is fairer than a less egalitarian society, other factors and reasonable bounds notwithstanding. In fact, the vast majority of people fall into this category, since almost no one would want to live in a society with Gini index 1.
If you ignore a few extremely radical die-hard libertarians whose positions are in my opinion not worth to be taken seriously (yes, I've read some Friedman, etc.; no, they are not more reasonable in their assumptions about human nature than communists), then the disagreements are more or less about:
- just amounts: the levels of resource distribution that one would consider just, e.g. the Gini index one considers acceptable (or other indicators - that's all part of the debate)
- just means: the mechanisms of resource distributions or other ways of obtaining a more egalitarian society that one considers just
- acceptable trade-offs: the trade-offs between methods of resource distribution and other moral, individual and moral principles like the Pareto principle, maximization of individual freedom, solidarity, democratic division of power, the right to a due process, etc.
The Pareto principle is economic and a right to individual freedom is perhaps best described as an ethical principle, but most of the other fundamental issues like Prioritarian or Egalitarian resource distribution principles, equal access to common goods, equality of opportunity, or democratic power division principles all concern different concepts of fairness. It's a fairly broad-reaching term and there are many trade-offs to make that define different political views.
My personal view is that nobody needs billions of dollars to lead a happy and fulfilled life and that various democratic mechanisms to generally decrease differences between income classes are desirable and ultimately lead to a better life for everyone, including the richest. But I understand that other political positions weigh some of the above ingredients differently.
- hacking_again 9y ago> My personal view is that nobody needs billions of dollars to lead a happy and fulfilled life I think having (needing) that much money is generally an indication that you don't lead a happy and fulfilled life.