Last Post (Cont.)

Is the government intervention the only way to facilitate a more “fair” distribution of wealth?

This is the question I’ve been asking myself since reading “Interesting Article #1” from the previous post. In the article, the author cites a study done by researchers that concluded that people would give up 20% of their income to achieve a world which is more “fair”. Admittedly, I did not read the article, so I’m unsure of the methodology the researchers employed to reach this conclusion. Right away I can see several issues with trying to measure somebody’s willingness to pay for fairness (what is fair?), but that was not my biggest qualm. That came in the next line: “In other words, people who think the free market is unjust would give up a fifth of their income to switch from a laissez-faire economy to one where the government reduces the gap between the rich and poor”. Suddenly unfair, equated with laissez-faire policies, is contrasted to its “fair” opposite: government intervention. In my view, the opposite of laissez-faire, in terms of creating a more egalitarian outcome, is not necessarily more government intervention. That is one possibility among many that can be employed to redistribute wealth and create a more “fair” society. Many factors that contribute to “unfair” economic outcomes can be uneconomic in basis (racism and sexism immediately come to mind), and even those problems that are economic based (education, healthcare), may not be adequately remedied solely by government intervention. One problem that arises when looking for practical solutions to these problems is the too frequent polarization of issues coupled with the brash and often morally-charged rhetoric pouring in from both “sides” of an issue.

Sean