more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 23120

[filed under theme 25. Social Practice / B. Equalities / 4. Economic equality ]

Full Idea

If everyone has sufficient resources, it is not objectionable that some have more than others. What is objectionable is that some do not have enough.

Gist of Idea

The problem is basic insufficiency of resources, not their inequality

Source

John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 10.3)

Book Ref

Kekes,John: 'Against Liberalism' [Cornell 1997], p.206


A Reaction

Reasonable, but there seems to be sharp disagreement between the haves and the have-nots over what counts as 'enough'. In an affluent country, does enough include a car, restaurant dining, and foreign holidays? Or just food and shelter?


The 25 ideas with the same theme [equality of wealth ansd earning ability]:

Does nature imply that it is right for better people to have greater benefits? [Plato]
Phaleas proposed equality of property, provided there is equality of education [Aristotle]
Wealth could be quickly leveled by only the rich giving marriage dowries [Aristotle]
All value depends on the labour involved [Locke]
Some equality can be achieved by social categories, combined with taxes and poor relief [Montesquieu]
Democracies may sometimes need to restrict equality [Montesquieu]
If you equalise possessions, people's talents will make them unequal again [Hume]
The pleasure of wealth and power is largely seeing others deprived of them [Rousseau]
No citizen should be rich enough to buy another, and none so poor as forced to sell himself [Rousseau]
Citizens can rise to any rank that talent, effort and luck can achieve [Kant]
Money is the best way to achieve just equality [Hegel]
Scarce goods may be denied entirely, to avoid their unequal distribution [Russell]
Inequality could easily be mitigated, if it were not for the struggle for power [Weil]
It is a mark of extreme exploitation that the sufferers do not realise their plight [Williams,B]
Equality of opportunity unfairly rewards those lucky enough to have great ability [Singer]
Equality is complex, with different spheres of equality where different principles apply [Walzer, by Swift]
It is not deplorable that billionaires have more than millionaires [Kekes]
The problem is basic insufficiency of resources, not their inequality [Kekes]
Equal distribution is no good in a shortage, because there might be no one satisfied [Kekes]
Libertarians just want formal equality in a free market; the meritocratic view wants fair equality [Sandel]
Inequalities are needed, as incentives to do the most important jobs [Swift]
A person can desire redistibution of wealth, without it being for reasons of equality [Swift]
If there is no suffering, wealth inequalities don't matter much [Tuckness/Wolf]
Inequalities are worse if they seem to be your fault, rather than social facts [Charvet]
Money allows unlimited inequalities, and we obviously all agree to money [Charvet]