4 ms·

There seems to be a contradiction in your thinking. If 'opportunity' is seen as making something of yourself, being successful, getting richer, that seems to n

There seems to be a contradiction in your thinking. If 'opportunity' is seen as making something of yourself, being successful, getting richer, that seems to necessitate inequality of outcomes. If the range of socially acceptable outcomes are compressed be redistributive policy, doesn't it also follow that the opportunities open the individuals will be concomitantly restricted?

ubernostrum 16y ago
You conflate two things. I'm saying that vast inequality in the distribution of wealth is a bad thing; historically, such inequality tends to lead first to oligarchy and then to entrenched aristocracy. You are interpreting this as an argument for absolute equality of wealth for all people, an argument I've not made and would not make. Some inequality of wealth distribution is a good thing; concentration of extreme percentages of total wealth into a tiny fraction of the populace is a bad thing. A good explanation of the difference this makes shows up in chapter 3 of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", where he discusses the impact of different inheritance laws on American and European society. The traditional European system of primogeniture created and favored hereditary aristocracy; the American system of division among multiple heirs made this impossible, and created more opportunities for social mobility since wealth could not be hoarded across generations, but instead was gradually distributed through the effects of the inheritance laws.
- Perceval 16y ago
  I think you have the causal arrows pointed the wrong way around. Historically, it is oligarchy and entrenched aristocracy that leads to an inequality in the distribution of wealth. Oligarchies are formed by force and perpetuated by social convention/norms, not by wealth. Wealth is the spoils. Hawthorne said that "Families are always rising and falling in America" and to a large extent this is true. The rich don't necessarily stay rich, and the top 100 companies from 50 or 100 years ago bear little or no resemblance to the top 100 companies today. While we may have high levels of inequality, it does not appear to be an entrenched inequality.

ubernostrum 16y ago

You conflate two things. I'm saying that vast inequality in the distribution of wealth is a bad thing; historically, such inequality tends to lead first to oligarchy and then to entrenched aristocracy. You are interpreting this as an argument for absolute equality of wealth for all people, an argument I've not made and would not make. Some inequality of wealth distribution is a good thing; concentration of extreme percentages of total wealth into a tiny fraction of the populace is a bad thing. A good explanation of the difference this makes shows up in chapter 3 of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", where he discusses the impact of different inheritance laws on American and European society. The traditional European system of primogeniture created and favored hereditary aristocracy; the American system of division among multiple heirs made this impossible, and created more opportunities for social mobility since wealth could not be hoarded across generations, but instead was gradually distributed through the effects of the inheritance laws.

Perceval 16y ago
I think you have the causal arrows pointed the wrong way around. Historically, it is oligarchy and entrenched aristocracy that leads to an inequality in the distribution of wealth. Oligarchies are formed by force and perpetuated by social convention/norms, not by wealth. Wealth is the spoils. Hawthorne said that "Families are always rising and falling in America" and to a large extent this is true. The rich don't necessarily stay rich, and the top 100 companies from 50 or 100 years ago bear little or no resemblance to the top 100 companies today. While we may have high levels of inequality, it does not appear to be an entrenched inequality.