Cafe Hayek

There are many reasons people worry about extreme income inequality. One is that we fear that societies that permit kind of situation become deformed societies, where class resentment causes strife, where governemtns and law enforcement become paid-for servants of the wealthiest, where social mobility becomes extraordinarily difficult and vanishingly rare.

I'm sure there is a libertarian argument against the situation I've described. That would be an honest approach. But to suggest that non-libertarians are disturbed by increasing income inequality purely because of our revulsion is to trivialize our opposition. Thanks.

Posted by: RWB | Nov 19, 2006 11:44:30 AM

What of those who don't find wealth repugnant, just poverty?

Posted by: ocmpoma | Nov 19, 2006 12:20:46 PM

I agree with DB that society should not try to eliminate, or even reduce, income inequality. But I think the desire to do so is quite 'natural' and is indeed an evolved aspect of our primate intelligence.

www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/evolpsych

I believe that the free market and libertarian perspectives are correct, but they are a product of abstract reasoning and science - and not a spontaneous human instinct.

Posted by: Bruce G Charlton | Nov 19, 2006 12:26:37 PM

This is an excellent comparison, albeit on the assumption that the pastor would like to enforce his preferences with the fist of the state. I saw no evidence of him asserting that homosexuality should be forbidden by law (though I'd bet he does!)

For those who don't find wealth repugnant, just poverty: they ought to concentrate on measures that increase wealth rather than ones that discourage it. Being 'opposed' to poverty is a bit like being opposed to muddy fields: pointless. That's just the way life is until you get up and do something about it. You don't stop your field from being muddy by walking onto someone else's paved field any more than you save one person from his primitive, poor state by handing him some of the fruits of another's efforts.

Posted by: Rory Meakn | Nov 19, 2006 2:05:04 PM

The world is a funny place. The Church may be just one scientific advance away from accepting homosexuality. Just as gays may be one scientific advance away from becoming conservative anti-abortion Christians.

They may have more in common than they know- after all, gays and Christians turnaround crappy inner-city areas better and faster than anyone including the Government.

Posted by: Al | Nov 19, 2006 3:54:58 PM

Most people are not civilized.

How will a scientific advance cause the church to accept something? You can't get a normative (acceptance of homosexuality) from an empirical (scientific advance). You'll need to get them to start believing in a different bible, one that doesn't condemn homosexuality.

Posted by: TGGP | Nov 19, 2006 4:08:07 PM

I aways thought that the origin of the fight against the income inequality was the fact that these people who earn above the average income reject being poor and feels that this situation is unable to anyone survive.

I live in Brazil, a country where the inequality is too high, and my comrades aways comment that "is impossible to live with the minimum wage".

If you like soccer, a man who doesn´t like soccer is viewed as a poor guy. If you earn a certain rent, those who doesn't earn your rent are considered miserable.

Posted by: Renato Drumond | Nov 19, 2006 6:52:25 PM

ocmpoma asks "What of those who don't find wealth repugnant, just poverty?"

And what of those who find the classist definition of poverty repugnant? There are a billion people on this planet who would dearly love to rise to the level of what some Americans call "poverty". That's what the immigration debate is all about, isn't it?

Posted by: True_Liberal | Nov 19, 2006 9:44:18 PM

I've heard this "fixed stock" tripe before. As well as the "You're just envious," hooey. If you take $99,000,000,000 of the Walton family's money, you leave them with a pitiful and paltry $1,000,000,000. They shouldn't complain too much. Only a dope would think someone should have that much money. That is far more obsene than having condomless anal sex in public. I can turn my head in order not to watch a consensual sex act in Central Park. I, personally, can't as easily turn my head away while youngsters dig in the trash for something to eat. I also find it morally repulsive that you continually pander to richest among us. They don't need your help in the slightest. You are defintitely in need of Pastor Bozo's help to get over your "Let them eat cake" philosophy. It simply reeks to high heaven. It would do you well to remember how Marie Antoinette ended up. Happy Thanksgiving Day to you, sir.

Posted by: Trumpit | Nov 19, 2006 11:48:19 PM

Trumpit, it only looks like pandering because you have missed the argument.

Posted by: ben | Nov 20, 2006 4:27:41 AM

It has been proven to my satisfaction that taking the Waltons' money from them will not help those children rooting in the trash for food. The short version of the economic argument of why not is that such forced redistribution will destroy the capital accumulation that gives hope that those children will eventually improve their own condition. You will destroy the economy that is the means of providing them with what livelyhood they do have.

But most of the income inequality modern liberal are so emotionally disgusted with doesn't involve children rooting in garbage for food. Its about the difference between Bill Gates and your typical working stiff, who has enough to eat, a roof over his head, hot and cold running water, and digital satellite TV. The repugnance for this income inequality, which is still pretty huge, is not based on pity for the poor, but envy of the rich. Its what Ayn Rand called hatred of the good for being good.

Posted by: SaulOhio | Nov 20, 2006 6:25:35 AM

BTW, Trumpit, apparently, I'm a dope.

Posted by: SaulOhio | Nov 20, 2006 7:25:38 AM

"So why do these "liberals" and "progressives" believe that income inequality is worthy of the state's attention?"
Envy.

Posted by: Kurt | Nov 20, 2006 7:59:39 AM

Some people (Lou Dobbs, Gretchen Morgenson, other distasteful individualss) seem to have a problem with high CEO pay on its face. These are the strawmen/strawwomen with whom you argue.
For the rest of us educated liberals, the real problem is a neglect of human rights in this country. It is wrong for children to go to bed hungry, to not be taught to read because schools are so bad, to not have medical care in an emergency that won't bankrupt their parents, etc. It is wrong for enlistees in the military to be paid so poorly that they are elegible for food stamps. It is wrong for Chevron to pay its janitors minimum wage with no benefits. Even if Paris Hilton didn't exist, these things would be wrong. The fact that Paris Hilton does exist, though, makes them disgusting, and I bet you agree.

If every child in this country had healthcare and decent schooling, and every hard-working american had a meaningful chance to better themselves (i.e. >$5.15 an hour in wages), I wouldn't really care how ludicrous the uber-rich were.

And, frankly, as a homosexual, I resent the analogy you draw. There is nothing wrong with people being gay. There is something wrong with children going to bed hungry. It's not about what happens to be your personal cup of tea. I'm not asking you to watch project runway; I'm asking that children be given the chance to learn to read.

Posted by: Harry | Nov 20, 2006 9:03:44 AM

Qoute from Harry: "I'm asking that children be given the chance to learn to read."

You aren't asking anything. You are demanding. You are demanding at the point of a gun. Maybe as you are making demands on somebody elses property, you could think about what its like when somebody is making demands on your sexuality at the point of a gun and tell me how its different.

Posted by: Keith | Nov 20, 2006 9:37:06 AM

I agree with the "wrong" of a hungry child. I disagree that the fruits of my labor ought to be taken from me and the plates of my children to pay for someone else's children.

Posted by: matt | Nov 20, 2006 9:54:28 AM

Harry, the existence of rich people is not stopping a single issue that you describe from being addressed. What I find more disgusting is that the government seems to be continually blocking meaningful education reform, fighting meaningless wars (Iraq, war on drugs), has so interfered with health insurance financing that a rational system cannot develop. Additionally many uber rich people give away their vast fortunes to charity (Gates, Buffet, Mellon yada, yada...).

Posted by: Mcwop | Nov 20, 2006 11:19:36 AM

What I find strange is the way in which some people equate inequality with poverty. Surely even the slightest knowledge of the facts would enable people to realize that eradicating extreme poverty does not _at all_ imply reducing inequality as a political objective.

For example, China and India are (by some calculations) lifting about 1 million people per year out of extreme poverty by standard capitalistic-style, free market, free trade growth; a policy which does not aim at reducing inequality. The rapidity of this success at alleviating poverty is unprecedented in world history. But China and India have only been able to eradicate poverty in this way by abandoning decades of socialism / egalitarian policies.

This is not a matter of opinion, these just are the facts of the case - surely?

Posted by: Bruce G Charlton | Nov 20, 2006 11:44:27 AM

"What I find strange is the way in which some people equate inequality with poverty."

Bruce, the problem is that the concept of poverty is relative, socially perceived. As I wrote before, people who fight against inequality "feels" that live with low wages is a disgusting thing. But what is a "low" wage? You only know what it is if you compare with wages that are "high". And here the inequality matters.

The error is to equate difference between income to difference between welfare. For example, if you reduce the global infant mortality, or the illiteracy rate, you would benefit the poor without reduce the inequality of income.

Posted by: Renato Drumond | Nov 20, 2006 12:15:50 PM

The argument made was total BS. Homosexuality does not carry negative externalities and costs with it. Does homosexuality kill? Does society incur a cost from it? No. But inequality of large enough proportions does indirectly cause illness, does impose real costs on society. If you look ugly, I might not like it, but it does nothing to me. If I am randomly pickpocketed by someone because they are poor and cannot sustain their family, then I do incur a cost.
To equate the two is obscene. I would ask the writer of the post to go to Brazil, all Latin America for that matter, and tell me what they see? Does the inequality of income and wealth have no impact on soceity? Or what?

Posted by: alex | Nov 20, 2006 5:09:42 PM

Alex: Ask yourself if its the inequality of income, or a lack of wealth thats the problem. I have been reading the posts of a Brazilian who has been posting on another pro-capitalist website, and what he describes there is a breakdown of the rule of law, and loss of property rights. The economic theory is that economic prosperity requires the rule of law and property rights.

Brazil scores a 3.08 on the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, which puts it in the "mostly Unfree" category.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?id=Brazil

Alex: You say that the inequality of wealth causes all sorts of problems in Latin America. Ask yourself if all the attmept the rulers of those countries have made to equalize wealth for the last century have ever worked? Seems they did more damage than good.

Posted by: SaulOhio | Nov 20, 2006 6:42:33 PM

Long day at work...
I don't buy the libertarian absolutist concept of property rights. I think property is a social construct, its protection requires the cooperation and consent of others, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to make that protection contingent upon the provision of basic rights for all. We don't live in the ultraminimalist state, and I, for one, am glad of that.
I agree that welfare and income are different, and I'm mostly concerned with the provision of basic welfare. If somebody robs your house and calls you names and taunts you while he does it, you'll be extra mad about the insult but the wrong done is that you got robbed. Similarly, the wrong is that there are children in this world who die of malnutrition, the fact that we're enacting a 0% tax on estates is just insult to injury.

Posted by: Harry | Nov 20, 2006 6:44:55 PM

Chile and Brzil have a simmilar Gini Coefficient, but compare the HDI:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/hdr05_HDI.pdf

Gini

Chile 0.571
Brazil 0.593

HDI

38 Chile 0.854
69 Brazil 0.792

Posted by: Renato Drumond | Nov 20, 2006 7:26:54 PM

Harry, I agree with you that a society could provide a basic welfare for his citizens. But it will be what it is - basic. Even Milton Friedman and Hayek agree with this. The problem is: the focus on the difference of income rather than certain welfare indicators doesn't enrich the debate.

For example, I live in Brazil. The illiteracy rate is 11%, the infant mortality is 32 per 1000, there is a basic sanitation deficit, etc . The government could attain certain goals on this areas without reduce the inequality of income. And I think that is what the government should do.

Posted by: Renato Drumond | Nov 20, 2006 8:08:46 PM

True_Liberal -- I didn't refer to the US in my post.

Posted by: ocmpoma | Nov 20, 2006 11:03:04 PM

The point of course is that "poverty" is subject to dozens of various definitions, subjective and (in some cases) of questionable validity.

Posted by: True_Liberal | Nov 21, 2006 9:28:14 AM

Poverty is our natural state. Without whatever you think "wealth" is, you'd never notice poverty.

And Harry, I like your idea that the protection of property requires the consent of others. Because I don't consent to your property you can fork it over.

Posted by: matt | Nov 21, 2006 11:00:41 AM

Harry is right: property is a social construct. Without the co-operation of others through the legitimacy of laws, your property would be limited to that which you could physically stop people forcibly taking away from you.

That said, the point of 'property' and property rights is to allow us all to worry less about defending what we have so we can spend more time on getting more of it. That's why we have a legal system, police and a military. We're all clearly better off being forced to pay for them by some impingement of our liberty than we would ever be without.

The analogy with homosexuality is brilliant. The man who works hard and builds himself a fortune (presumably by making many (mutually beneficial) transactions with others) does no real harm to others. He does, however, upset some people's gut instincts of how a better world would be and others may find his material success irritating or even offensive, when others have done so little to improve their lives.

Similarly, the homosexual does no harm to others and merely enjoys (mutually beneficial) relations with other adults. He does, however, upset some people's gut instincts of how a better world would be and others may find his mannerisms and behaviour irritating or even offensive, especially when they have so little else in their lives except trenchant religious beliefs.

Neither is a reason for state or government intervention, beyond the freedom of both the capitalist and the homosexual to go about their private, peaceful ways as they see fit.

Posted by: Rory Meakin | Nov 21, 2006 12:54:20 PM

http://famous-people.t35.com/name20/vinessa-shaw.html

Posted by: Jessica | Aug 2, 2007 8:08:56 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.