That is the question posed by Steve Denbeste over at USS Clueless, commenting on the concept that the (widening) gap in income between rich and poor about which many liberal activists are currently complaining. If your basic driving principle is freedom, as his is, then this gap is not a problem but rather the expected outcome of competition; the other side is not really seeking equality in the sense that all are treated alike but wants equality of results and is willing to take away any aspects of freedom until that point is reached.
In theory, I agree with Steve. In practice, though, we see all too many occassions where the results are compromised by people willing to infringe on others’ equality of opportunity by violating the law. Not just Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, or Martha Stewart, those are too easy targets, but what about Microsoft’s pattern of behavior over the past 15 years? His article is spurred by a corrpondent’s comments on the concentration of wealth in too few hands, so I picked Microsoft because three of the 10 richest Americans (according to the recent Forbes listing) have fortunes due to that company (Gates continues at the top, with Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer fitting in after Buffet–BillG’s best friend–and the Walton clan). What about the lifetime of largess granted to corporate chieftains after retirement? GE’s Jack Welch is the easy example just because of the information that came out this last week but if you look at any number of annual filings, especially in years in which a top exec retires, you’ll see much the same thing.
So, in our less than perfect world, my answer to the question is that it’s a flawed question. Neither answer allowed comes close to the reality we face.
Candide says this is the best of all possible worlds but of course Voltaire used that speech as an opportunity to propose that the idea is far from truth. And Steven, you know that, your Engineerist philosophy prompts you to take in the ever-present shades of grey.
BillSaysThis 