You say we should not expect equality of outcomes, Bill, and to a certain extent I agree completely. But you are overlooking the impact that the way the economy is structured, and the way society and government are structured, can determine what attributes and talents bring about what outcomes. By having the hoop ten feet high instead of five feet high, basketball gives a greater advantage to tall people. By having a law against people acting violently toward one another, we take away the "advantage" that physically strong people have to attack and injure physically weak people. And by the same token, the structures of government, healthcare, the economy, electoral districts, and moral consensus help to select the qualities that will be rewarded in our society.
In other words, the outcomes are not determined solely by innate qualities, but are also determined by the rules of the game in which those innate qualities are made to operate. It is just and proper for us not to take the existing rules of the game as written in stone, but to suggest that they ought to be altered in a way that distributes the rewards and disadvantages more equitably. And in that context we can (as I do) argue that there are some things, like healthcare and police protection, that ought not to be rewards for those of greater talent or wealth.
We can certainly have a fairer healthcare system and tax code, with less income inequality, and still leave plenty of room for those with greater talents to reap appropriately greater rewards.
|