There is much confusion - probably intentional - between inequality of people and inequality of societal condition. People are not like each other. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
Inequality of people is normal and just.
But, the important characteristic of any just society - in fact, this is its meaning - is that the law applies equally to all. The law should not be changed to give a disadvantage, or disadvantage, to anyone. To do so makes the society unjust - unequal.
In a just society, a free market is essential, for people will become unequal - quite justly - by contributing more or less. If you train for a long while to be a doctor, then discover a particular skill for replacing wonky hearts, you are likely to be well compensated. Someone who is pretty good at sweeping floors is likely to get far less. But, this is not unjust. In fact it is perfectly just.
The free market adjusts what you give to what you get and it does it fairly - if you believe such decisions should properly be in the hands of the people. (Rather than the route of the ukase delivered by people who know far better than the common people how they should behave.)
Perhaps the difference between the political democrat and the market democrat is that politically one makes a decision every few years, whereas in the market you make decisions all the time.
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote:
In the answers given to the above question in the FT last week in the discussion between Michael Prowse (who said No) and Amity Shlaes (who said Yes) I found I had a substantial mental reservation in each of the articles.In the case of Michael Prowse's article, although he was quite right to say that the earliest human groups were egalitarian to a considerable extent (such as sharing food), he was wrong to suggest that there would have been no rank orderings and thus little stress. But strict rank order has been found in all primate groups with consequent stress levels in all ranks below the top one. What's important is not to try and dissolve rank order in some egalitarian nirvana -- because that's impossible -- but to organise our institutions with as few levels as possible. One weak point in Amity Shlaes' article concerned what she saw as the benefits of the low quality educational system in America (in that she said it encouraged personal creativity). I though this was a silly point. Teaching basic skills thoroughly doesn't militate against creativity -- indeed, it's a necessary precursor. The following letter in today's FT concentrates on this weakness on Shlaes' article (and also reinforces the point I frequently make on FW that America's economic success is due mainly to the immigration of talented foreignors): <<<< If inequality is good for you, an open door to talent is even better Sir, The debate between Michael Prowse and Amity Shlaes on the virtues of egalitarianism and inequality (FT Weekend, December 7/8), provided a fascinating read. Mr prowse suggests that, in contrast to today's unequal capitalist world, for most of human history we had lived in small, egalitarian and consensus-driven groups of hunters and gatherers, more equal and happier then today as a result. Such arguments are not new and have been mounted against modernity for a long time. They tend to paitn an unrealistic picture of idyllic tribal existence. They ignore the fact that an average human stood small chance of survival past the age of 30, in large part owing to dangers from fellow humans, who resolved issues of relative status with clubs and spears. Ms Shlaes (whose point of view I generally share) gushes at the splendid results that education neglect of American teenagers has for he country's economy, because it supposedly produces creative thinkers who translate playing Nintendo into superior software-writing skills. Curious, then, that the US software indsutry is driven largely by foreign-born entrepreneurs and computer progrmmers from India, China and Russia, where the educational emphasis is on discipline and rigorous pursuit of hard sciences. The main strength of the US is not benign neglect of its youth; it is its openness to top foreign talent, which is allowed to enter and compensate for the deficiency of secondary education in the US.Experts agree that US secondary schools are inferior to those of many other countries. However, its universities and graduate school draw on the best foreign students. who tend to win admission to these elite schools because of their rigorous primary education. Armed with advanced degrees from Columbia, Harvard and MIT, they go on to power the US's knowledge economy and drive growth. Ms Shlaes' argument is better served by lauding US openness to foreign talent than by singing the praises of an educational system painfully in need of reform. Batan M. Shklyar, Cambridge, MA, US
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
