Is Income Inequality Immoral?

[Era Might]

In short, I disagree with Andrew Carnegie regarding forced government redistribution of wealth.

 

I have nothing against redistribution of wealth itself - it's specifically forced redistribution that I have a problem with.

Philanthropy by definition is voluntary giving.  I also think the government is often far from wise in how it spends other's money.

 

Ironically, super-rich philanthropists like Carnegie must first gain vastly greater amounts of wealth than the majority of the population (and hence, there be income inequality) before they can can charitably give it to others.  Attempts to equalize all income and prevent the rich from getting rich, would prevent the vast creation of wealth and enrichment of society by men such as Carnegie.

 

Philanthrophy is not charity. Neither is government control of wealth (in whatever degree). The government is involved in justice.

 

Men such as Carnegie do not create wealth, but they know how to accumulate and manage it. Carnegie does not create the wealth of knowledge in a scientist's head, or the wealth of resources in a country's territory, or the military force that creates favorable international conditions, or the political wealth that keeps society afloat.

 

Privilege begets privilege. While on the small-scale there are "self-made men," on the large-scale the fortunate benefit from fortunate conditions, and the unfortunate scrape by on what they have available to them. I don't take a dogmatic approach to society, either for or against capitalism, but I don't think the benevolence of rich men is somehow superior to the benevolence of a government. In reality, their power depends on each other, and in either case, the people are at their mercy.

[dairygirl4u2c]

given how much extra money the uberrich and very rich get nowaways, it's not too much to ask for them to pay more in taxes. espeically more in terms of a sliding scale instead of flat tax that affects everyone the same. it also would probably be good for the economy to take that excess, throw it to what's needed for society, and help alleive the middle class, given that would be best stimulate the economy. it would all eventually work itself back up the ladder soon enough anyway. 

 

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

QUOTE
Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

QUOTE
"Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. "

QUOTE
�it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.

QUOTE
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.

QUOTE
What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.

QUOTE
To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality.

The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.

QUOTE
property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.

From this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production.

QUOTE
Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equality...If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

QUOTE
In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results.

QUOTE
Given these conditions, it is obvious that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and progress.

QUOTE
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Pope Paul VI's 20th-century encyclical "Populorum Progressio" (on the Development of Peoples), however, is a manifesto against capitalism. "Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition," he says, "will not ensure satisfactory development." .... Quoting St. Ambrose, Paul writes, "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his."

[dairygirl4u2c]

for all the reasons mentioned, it follows that it's a duty for the rich to be redistributed. it even follows that if it is truly a duty and what is owed to the poor and what a right, then again follows that redistribution to some extent is morally required. and, following traditional catholic social teaching.... redistribution in some form is required. 

[Socrates]

Philanthrophy is not charity. Neither is government control of wealth (in whatever degree). The government is involved in justice.

 

The difference is that philanthropy is voluntary, while government programs are forced and mandatory.

 

In reality, the government is just as involved in injustice as justice.

 

Men such as Carnegie do not create wealth, but they know how to accumulate and manage it. Carnegie does not create the wealth of knowledge in a scientist's head, or the wealth of resources in a country's territory, or the military force that creates favorable international conditions, or the political wealth that keeps society afloat.

 

 

Yeah, "you didn't build that!"

Nobody denies that wealth-building usually involves collaboration.  Knowledge in a scientist's head does nothing to make anybody richer unless it is utilized and managed to create actual products.

This collaboration of persons works best in a free society of persons interacting voluntarily.

 

While rule of law and stability is necessary to allow a prosperous society, the government itself does little to actually create wealth.

 

It's no accident that the bulk of innovation and development of successful wealth-creation has taken place in economically free societies, rather than socialist ones.

 

 

 

Privilege begets privilege. While on the small-scale there are "self-made men," on the large-scale the fortunate benefit from fortunate conditions, and the unfortunate scrape by on what they have available to them. I don't take a dogmatic approach to society, either for or against capitalism, but I don't think the benevolence of rich men is somehow superior to the benevolence of a government. In reality, their power depends on each other, and in either case, the people are at their mercy.

 

 

Much as socialist theorists deny it, freedom and economic prosperity are indeed positively linked.  Socialism does not create wealth, but poverty.

[Era Might]

Yeah, "you didn't build that!"

Nobody denies that wealth-building usually involves collaboration.  Knowledge in a scientist's head does nothing to make anybody richer unless it is utilized and managed to create actual products.

This collaboration of persons works best in a free society of persons interacting voluntarily.

 

How gracious of you for allowing everyone to interact freely with you to make yourself rich off the earth and sky and society that you did not create.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Era Might

[Socrates]

How gracious of you for allowing everyone to interact freely with you to make yourself rich off the earth and sky and society that you did not create.

 

Do you have an actual point here?  No one should gain wealth but God, since only He created the raw natural resources?  Even a simple farmer gains some wealth by intelligently and industriously utilizing the earth, as opposed to what he could obtain by simple hunting and gathering.

[Era Might]

Do you have an actual point here?  No one should gain wealth but God, since only He created the raw natural resources?  Even a simple farmer gains some wealth by intelligently and industriously utilizing the earth, as opposed to what he could obtain by simple hunting and gathering.

 

I have no problem with gaining wealth, my point was simply that men like Carnegie do not create wealth. They accumulate and manage it, with generous help from all the wealth that already exists, wealth which they neither created and which has more claims in society beyond their accumulation and management. Capitalism as a mechanical system is beneficial. Capitalism as a framework for mythologizing the world, not so much.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Era Might

[dairygirl4u2c]

what is telling, is the always present eery silence, fromeven the hard core conservatives in this forum and thread, regarding those papal quotes that say some redistributism, basically, is required. all ya hear is maybe 'socialism is wrong'. a person espeically catholic shouldn't read papal writings to contradict each other, though, taken them all together, blatant social ism wrong, a few socialistic tendencies is not. ya might hear private redistributism is what is required, but at least those quotes that refer to taxes and the government, and the general context of the quotes... that is not what is being talked about.

Edited August 14, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Capitalism as a mechanical system is beneficial. Capitalism as a framework for mythologizing the world, not so much.

and capitalism as a end means moral system is flawed. and even rejected by catholic social teaching.
 

[add]

Weath is created by hard work and enterprise.
Without it you would still be living in caves and eating bark for nourishment
I for one am greatful for that

[Era Might]

Weath is created by hard work and enterprise.
Without it you would still be living in caves and eating bark for nourishment
I for one am greatful for that

 

And, following that logic, once wealth is accumulated by hard work and enterprise, it operates without hard work and enterprise, benefiting those who never sweated for it. What you call "wealth" can also be called capital, and capital is great for those who inherit it (in whatever form), and gives them an advantage they did not gain by their own hard work and enterprise. Which was, incidently, one of Carnegie's arguments:

 

 

 

There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It call be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of these modes. The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe to-day teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions.The successors have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great Britain the strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an hereditary class. Its soil is rapidly passing into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions the division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great suns bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Era Might

[Socrates]

I have no problem with gaining wealth, my point was simply that men like Carnegie do not create wealth. They accumulate and manage it, with generous help from all the wealth that already exists, wealth which they neither created and which has more claims in society beyond their accumulation and management. Capitalism as a mechanical system is beneficial. Capitalism as a framework for mythologizing the world, not so much.

 

What exactly do you mean by "wealth"?  Good and intelligent management of wealth (money, capital, resources, etc.) is necessary to have a prosperous and growing business that creates more wealth in the sense of products and services which are exchanged for money, enriching the businessmen, their employees, and those who benefit from the goods and services provided.  Carnegie may not have created his wealth single-handedly, but his efforts did help grow the economy and create more wealth.

 

Or, to put it simply, do you think all the wealth Carnegie gave away in philanthropic endeavors would have already existed if he (or others like him) had done nothing at all?

 

 

"Capitalism" (I prefer to use the term "free-market economy" to avoid ambiguity) is the most effective and efficient system for the creation and distribution of material wealth.  It's nothing more.

 

I said nothing about "mythologizing the world" (whatever that means).

[Era Might]

What exactly do you mean by "wealth"?  Good and intelligent management of wealth (money, capital, resources, etc.) is necessary to have a prosperous and growing business that creates more wealth in the sense of products and services which are exchanged for money, enriching the businessmen, their employees, and those who benefit from the goods and services provided.  Carnegie may not have created his wealth single-handedly, but his efforts did help grow the economy and create more wealth.

 

Or, to put it simply, do you think all the wealth Carnegie gave away in philanthropic endeavors would have already existed if he (or others like him) had done nothing at all?

 

 

"Capitalism" (I prefer to use the term "free-market economy" to avoid ambiguity) is the most effective and efficient system for the creation and distribution of material wealth.  It's nothing more.

 

I said nothing about "mythologizing the world" (whatever that means).

 

By wealth I mean creation generally. There are two different contexts here: the economic system, and the world. They are not synonymous, and making them so is problematic in too many ways.

 

Capitalism is problematic precisely because its wealth is divorced from reality. "Wealth" becomes a private concept, rather than something inherent in nature, which we borrow. The world does not exist to enrich us. The idea of "resources" is part of an industrial system, not part of the world itself. In order to justify the material conquest of the world by the strong, it has to be fit into a systematic, abstract mythology of wealth and industry.

 

I disagree that capitalism "is the most effective and efficient system for the creation and distribution of material wealth," given the subhuman poverty experienced in so many parts of the world. The system benefits the system, it is efficient for those who know how to play within the system. It's like a game, the rules are an artificial terrain.

 

The world does not exist to enrich anyone, but to nourish everyone. I happen to like many aspects of capitalism, in the context of the system. But I never confuse the system with reality, anymore than the Matrix is reality. And I do not dismiss other forms of organizing the world, which may not work within our system, but that does not necessarily discredit them.

 

Thus far in history, capitalism has created a godless society (and I mean that in a literal sense, not even the ancient pagans were godless). Capitalism has efficiently enriched and benefited those within the system, but it has also created a new world order not rooted in nature and humanity, but in wealth. Capital has no values, no role in nature, it follows wealth and opportunity, and society is reshaped by those pursuits.

 

Capitalism has proven a beneficial economic system, but it has not proven a human success story. It's too early, really, to draw any real conclusions. Our new world order is too new, and has failed to accomplish what simple nature accomplishes: give shelter, food, and a few happy years to all men. It has certainly had its positive benefits, but to base my worldview on it? That is going too far. Societies of the past have lived very happy socialistic lives. Modern industrial socialism / communism is pretty much proven a failure, but that is simply its modern form, which, like Capitalism, is too much of a meteor in history thus far to draw any real conclusions.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Era Might