Interesting post here on democracy and economics. Check it out and read my reply back here (below) or in the comments over there.
The total distribution of wealth is not something that falls within the just powers of government. Wealth redistribution by popular vote is just the same as saying that a mob has the right to steal. A mob does not have that right. A democracy is a system of government so democratic decision making is limitted to the just powers of government. Hence, it is consistent to have a democratically governed country where distribution of wealth is decided by market forces and not democratically.
Furthermore, there are details you've left out. For example, what about the "smaller pie" argument, where it is argued that artificial levelling makes for less over-all wealth generation and you wind up with the lowest end of the scale being just as bad off or only marginally better in absolute terms but with less inequality because everyone else is worse off. From "behind the veil of ignorance" (ie, not knowing which group I'll be in) I would choose the larger pie with more inequality where at least some people are better off and none or very few are worse off (and only marginally) than in the smaller pie that generated less over-all wealth but was more egalitarian.
Your post seems to assume alot about what are just government intervention in economies. Namely, you seem to have as a premise that in a democratic society any intervention that the people would vote for would be just. I'm not entirely convinced that that is the case.
Lately, in articulating my views on economic justice I have been more focussed on individual rights and dignity than on broad worries about inequality. Here is a simply stated principle: "It is wrong to pay someone less than enough for their family to prosper." I call this "pro-family economics" and "making work pay." Policies like raising the minimum wage, improving education, and universal health coverage fall out of this view immediately, for example. From an economic justice standpoint, I'm more worried that the basic dignity of those at the bottom are met than if skyrocketting wealth at the top means greater inequality over-all. (Though it may turn out to be the case that when basic dignity is respected the distribution is more egalitarian, that's not the purpose).
That's not to say there aren't other problems with inequality, such as the relationship between wealth and power to influence political outcomes, but I think that these are to be dealt with seperately from economic justice.
Comments