John Sutter just published on CNN a new liberalistic opinion on the "morality" of income inequality, citing opinions of four people introduced as "philosophers" in the area of social justice. In short, they are smart enough to not directly indulge themselves in confirming the immorality of different income for different folks, but rather came up with a few talking points about the issue. Mostly, there is nothing new to them, it's the same old rephrasing of the school of thought initiated by Carl Marx, the notorious social agitator and political utopist of 19 century. Based on his theories the evil empire of the former USSR and it's satellites existed for three quarters of 20th century, managed to take lives of 50 to 70 millions of it's own people and made lives of a few hundred million more quite miserable for generations. Apparently for a good measure, straightforward ideas of bad old Carl are sprinkled with a few drops of reasonable components.
So what are the talking points, the product of liberal minds happy to loan their hard-born philosophical babies to Mr. Sutter? Here you go:
- Income inequality isn't a moral problem; opportunity is.
- Inequality turns us into "Downtown Abbey".
- Wealth is rad; human suffering isn't.
- Extreme inequality ruins democracy.
- Jesus wants us to be poor.
- The size of the rich-poor gap matters.
- Inequality is bad if the poor don't benefit too.
Let's try to dissect and digest those, and see which ones, if any, make some sense for American reality.
"Income inequality isn't a moral problem; opportunity is". Now, when we put 12 people on the start line and give them a signal to run for a 5-mile distance, do we expect them to come to finish all at the same time? Nope, whoever is better prepared will come first. And for some people it will require more preparation than for others. Additionally it will be up to all of them to get ready. In our society, do we have to benefit high school dropouts? Or do we have to benefit the hard workers? Are these really difficult questions? And do we, as a society, need to encourage everyone to succeed? Unequivocal "yes" for the last one. So what's wrong? The high schools are open for everyone. And last time I checked they were free. Grants are there for some. Student loans, as hard as it is to pay them back, are available. Rich people have better chance to put their kids into Ivy League? So become rich & make it easier on your kids. Steve Jobs did that. Mike Dell did that. Who needs more examples?
"Inequality turns us into "Downtown Abbey"". This is a total nonsense. Inequality will always exist as people should have equal rights but their abilities, their skills, their determination, their attitude will always be different. And yes, people who worked long & hard for their money will have more opportunities to buy things & services. Anything wrong with that?
"Wealth is rad; human suffering isn't". Now, I don't think everyone understands what "rad" means. Apparently, it's a liberal slang for what used to be called "cool". Mr. Sutter is trying to sound rad, or cool. I agree with this notion though, people should not suffer & everything possible needs to be done to eliminate suffering. But what is "suffering"? Hungry people suffer & need to be fed. And taught how to make money so they won't be hungry anymore. Abused suffer & whoever abuses them needs to be removed from his victims & punished. But if someone suffers because he or she drives old rusty Civic or could not go to Bahamas, my advice would be: "You have to work for it. Educate yourself. Learn good skills. And work hard. Than and only than the world will open up to you and all the beautiful thing will become available".
"Extreme inequality ruins democracy". You bet it does. 2012 presidential election costed each candidate's campaign about 1 billion dollars. We need to find a way to end it. The same with golden parachutes for high level execs and unlimited bonuses for CEOs, CFOs and COOs of public companies - regardless of their performance. That's were government regulations could and should make a difference. By the way, even private companies should abide by some caps here if they want to bid for government contracts.
"Jesus wants us to be poor". I will leave this one to everybody's own perception on religion. Atheists may feel free to ridicule this statement as they usually do when someone mentions the Holy Scriptures. My personal take is that religious people shouldn't consider wealth the most precious thing in the world.
"The size of the rich-poor gap matters". I agree it does. But remember how much Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donate to good causes. They would not be able to do this shouldn't they have all this money, for which they work very hard all their lives.
"Inequality is bad if the poor don't benefit too". I would add here "working poor". Yes, some people do work and don't make enough. I am not going to repeat everything already said about the value of good education, marketable skills & desire to succeed. Not everyone is born with equal abilities. Not everyone could achieve the same heights. But in most cases consistent hard work bring the desired fruits of success. It could be different for everyone. Simply because all of us are different. That's the beauty of life. But everyone who wants a good life should work very hard for it rather then hope that someone will do it for him or her.
"To everyone according to his needs" was a slogan introduced by Carl Marx. We must know - unfortunately many even well-educated people already forgot - what happened when his ideas were implemented. Who should fulfill those needs? Who should create all these beautiful things which we all desire? Just we, the people.
Maybe, by and large, there is a couple reasonable ideas in the article after all. Albeit Mr. Sutter, why the word "income" is mentioned so many times in your piece, but "hard work" not even once?
No comments:
Post a Comment