Re: Financial Equality and Wealth Distribution

From: Darren (reply.to_at_news.group)
Date: 06/05/04 

Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:41:47 -0700

"Sgt. Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qLrvc.2755$pE2.930@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> Apologies if this is not an appropriate place. I've not had enough
> time to sufficiently lurk. Pointers to a more appropriate group are
> welcome.
>
> Financial equality. Why do folks argue that it is TheRightThing(tm).

I concur with those who have pointed out that *most* of those who argue for
equality are really merely arguing for 'less inequality' (as others have
mentioned here), rather than "full equality" (tm). Perhaps a few
back-to-the-land environmental types might like to see a nation of simple,
egalitarian, self-sufficient farmers again (ie close to 100% equality)...
but they usually don't mention the 90% depopulation that would be required
to make this work. Once a society passes the primitive stage, some
inequality seems to be inevitable.

It's hard to say how much inequality is the "right" amount, and I haven't
seen anyone settle that yet. If we are referring to wealth and accumulated
assets, then plainly the old would (and probably should) have more than the
young (since they worked all their lives to get it), and those who liked
accumulating assets and working hard would (and probably should) have more
than those who choose to take it easy and smell the roses.

But do smart people "deserve" to have more than dumb people? The strong and
able deserve more than the weak and unhealthy? Do the children of
priviledge "deserve" to be born with more than most of us can ever hope to
have in our lives?

Natural Rights Libertarians would say all of these questions are ethically
irrelevant. The only thing that counts is "freedom from coercion", let the
market decide who earns what and how they spend it, let the wealth and
income chips fall where they may.... most people aren't comfortable with
this principle alone.

This answer barely scratches the surface, of course.

Darren

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ptr1 == ptr2 but (int)ptr1 != (int)ptr2
    ... The standard guarantees that comparing for equality always works. ... segmented world of real-mode x86 systems, "far" pointers (which ... consisted of a 16-bit segment and a 16-bit offset) only compared ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: pointer equality
    ... Of course it should be "The C Programming Language". ... : Pointers comparison is defined only for parts of the same object: ... The equality operators follow the same rules as the relational ... relational operators on pointers to distinct objects cause undefined ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: set double array to 0.0
    ... > void * pointers for anything but equality. ... > that is not guaranteed (you cannot compare pointers for other than ... > equality unless they are pointers within the same object). ... If so, yes, I assume a flat memory ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: pointer equality
    ... > Pointers comparison is defined only for parts of the same object: ... > The equality operators follow the same rules as the relational ... >relational operators on pointers to distinct objects cause undefined ... The key is in the "or to a pointer to void" words in A7.10. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality
    ... Is this equality comparison check of function pointers, legal, correct ... and comparison for inequality will work as you ... representation that is not unique, ...
    (comp.lang.c)