7 ms·
The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and of
by pron 9y ago
The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom.
As freedom can never be total[2], the question is do we prefer to reduce the freedom of the powerful few (whose freedom is already large) in order to increase that of the many, or vice-versa?
So while absolute income is certainly very important, ignoring inequality is simply irrational for someone who values freedom.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
[2]: One person can be totally free; two cannot. X would either be free to infringe on Y's freedom or not -- in either case, freedom is no longer total.
- thanatropism 9y agoThis is an interesting answer. But I'm not sure if inequality-of-power-driven-by-inequality-of-wealth can be problematized (put into the discussion and on the agenda) and fought in such a way that equalizes power. We're shuffling power around and the dynamics of power inequality aren't clear at all.
- pron 9y agoGreat inequality of wealth is virtually always an inequality of power, and so it is "problematized". You're right that all social dynamics are complex (even economics, or "the dynmaics of wealth", isn't known to the way it can be effectively controlled), but at the end of the day, policies are made based on values. A society that values the maximization of freedom would fight against growing wealth inequality beyond a point it deems acceptable. A complicating factor is that, while power is relative, it certainly grows sub-linearly in the absolute baseline. For example, if I have nothing, someone with a few thousands of dollars can have great power over me. But if I have $0.5M, even someone with $1B wouldn't have as much power over me[1]. This is why absolute wealth is also very important, which is why the question of "would we rather have more absolute wealth or less inequality?" doesn't have a simple answer. [1]: Although it is not true that my own "fuck you" money is enough to completely counteract the richer person's power. For example, their wealth is used to indirectly affect many people, say through political campaign ads, who then change the laws and thus influence me.
- scott_s 9y agoI agree with your comments, but I want to add to it. I agree that wealth inequality leads to power inequality. And I agree that curtails freedom. But I think it also tends to societal instability. Closing the loop, we care about wealth inequality because we don't want society to collapse.
- thanatropism 9y agoAre there historical examples of societal collapse due to wealth inequality? (Honest question)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fjsolwmv 9y agoGreat Depression and various Communist Revolutions might fit your bill.
- tokai 9y agoThe Russian empire?
- marcosdumay 9y agoLook for collapse due to power concentration, not wealth. You will find plenty of examples, but we usually call them "revolution", not "collapse".
- scarmig 9y agoNot in itself. Even the various Communist revolutions cited in other comments don't correlate well with inequality: Tsarist Russia in 1905 and 1917 had lower levels of inequality than Victorian England.
- ambicapter 9y agoThe French Revolution?
- 9y ago
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoIt has to do with universal commodification. Check out Michael Walzer and 'Spheres of Justice.' He makes the case for a kind of 'complex equality' where power in one sphere doesn't bleed into another. Thus having a lot of money would allow you to buy fancy paintings and a nice car and typical commodities but when it comes to something like healthcare, we'd be better off if money couldn't be used to buy a better version of it. The easiest thing to make the case to be a separate sphere is education. Should a wealthy parent really be able to opt-out of public education and pay for a better one? Perhaps all of society would benefit if we put everyone 'on the same side' so to speak and the rich and poor alike had to advocate for improvements to the same universal system.
- drieddust 9y agoThat is an interesting idea. I have not read the book so just wondering what will be his solution for concentration of power within the sphere or it is just a lesser evil system.
- pron 9y agoThat's a nice idea, although I suspect it would garner much opposition if it were workable at all. One of the main reasons for accumulating wealth beyond a certain point is, I would assume, to gain power :)
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoSure, that's the thing about political philosophy, it's all so radical. Still though we can bring in shades of these ideas to our world, just small reductions in the power of wealth on healthcare or education are nice.
- aje403 9y agoThis is a distortion. Young men see rich men with beautiful women flying to anywhere they want on the planet. Only a few of them will get that when they're older, and it oftens boils down to intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, other abilities like athletics and looks, and a few lucky breaks that they take advantage of. Exceptions being inherited wealth. Law of averages, those who do make it are hard working and intelligent. Law of averages, those who do not are often less so. However, everyone still wants the hot girl and the jet. So what's the right thing to do? Take "power" from [Hard working and intelligent]U[Scott Disick, Donald JR] to normalize influence across everyone? Should the group, who by and large, has contributed more to the society not have proportionally more say? And then the issue becomes more nuanced when you take into account inheritance and things of that nature.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoWhat makes you think that often it boils down to intelligence and work ethic and the exceptions are inherited wealth. The law of averages is just as likely to support the idea that those who are born into high class families will stay high class as it is what you're proposing.
- TremendousJudge 9y agoYou contradict yourself. You say that "those who do make it are hard working and intelligent", while also acknowledging that there are people who "made it" who aren't "hard working and intelligent" (Scott Disick, Donald JR).
- fvdessen 9y agoWhy should power and freedom be distributed equally rather than proportional to competence and virtue ?
- pron 9y agoFirst, it's important to note that when I talk about equality I mean statistical equality within acceptable margins. I.e., not that all people personally have equal power. As to your question, it's a matter of values. As I said in another comment, Western democratic (aspirational) values are such that all lives have equal value. Your personal values may differ. We can't justify our values based on some mathematical formula; that's the meaning of values. They are core beliefs. Nevertheless, we could point out some obvious problems with different value systems from the Western democratic ones. For example, how is it even possible to distribute anything based on virtue and competence? We cannot distribute power based on actual competence and virtue, but only on perceived or measured competence and virtue, and that is very different. Measured competence and virtue are circumstantial, and in our real world (as opposed to some imagined utopia), reality is that power may strongly influence circumstance (and so our perception of competence and virtue). Say, if a powerful country exploits a less powerful one, steals its resources and enslaves its people, it creates a circumstance where those exploited people may have adversarial conditions to display their competence and virtue. So we would say that even if our values were such that we believed that power should be distributed based on competence and virtue, doing so would be impossible, and attempting to do so (based on measured competence and virtue) would actually result in something very different. This is why the term meritocracy is satirical (or, at least, it was coined as a satirical term), because it's obvious that true merit cannot really be measured, and any attempt at meritocracy would be no better than a system based on, say, hereditary value (nobility). Having said that, to some acceptable degree, even in democratic societies we do want to reward virtue and competence. We put criminals in prison (taking most power from them), and reward competent virtuous people with success that imbues power. But we don't want the disparity to grow too large because we're aware that 1. our measurement of virtue and competence is flawed, and 2. too large a disparity causes great harm to freedom.