It's nice to see that The Atlantic caught up with Thomas Jefferson [1], "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " The question now before us is can we live with the inequality or destroy it without destroying ourselves?<p>1 - <a href="http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...%28Quotation%29" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l...</a><p>- Edit: grammar
In a similar vein Dan Carlin has repeatedly brought up in his podcasts the concept of the "historical arsonist" [1] or those great leaders/peoples who, on their rampage of murder and mayhem across their respective continents burned away the old making room for growth.<p>[1] <a href="https://warisboring.com/dan-carlin-explains-historical-arsonists-2199c93ace22#.5fv9dvpo5" rel="nofollow">https://warisboring.com/dan-carlin-explains-historical-arson...</a>
I find this entire argument suspect. It all boils down to pointing to instances when catastrophe lowered inequality, ignoring all the instances when catastrophe increases inequality, and then claiming that's the only thing that causes inequality. The entire line of reasoning is specious. You can't prove a negative. It confuses correlation with causation.
A current counter-example would be the Tunisian revolution[0], started because of economic inequalities, 6 years later, said inequalities are still there if not deepened.<p>0.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution</a>
Inequality != Injustice<p>Imagine a society where the poorest person had a standard-of-living on par with Warren Buffet, but where the richest person was richer than the poorest by a factor 100-times greater than we find in our world today. Does anyone argue that such a society is worse than the one we find ourselves in? Wouldn't everyone jump at the chance to live in that society, regardless of which strata they found themselves living in?<p>Another thought experiment: Imagine you could wave a wand today and redistribute everyone's wealth such that everyone had exactly <i>equal wealth</i>. Further assume you could find a set of laws which guaranteed nobody would exploit anyone else, and dictate and enforce them perfectly on this utopic society. Would you allow trades in your society? If so, how long would it take before some people had <i>more wealth</i> than others? Would it just never happen? If not, why not?<p>Inequality is no great evil to be banished. Even if it were, you couldn't do it and maintain the freedom of <i>different people</i> to value <i>different goods/services</i> at <i>different amounts</i> and to make trades based on their values.<p>Fighting Poverty is a worthy goal.<p>Fighting Injustice is a worthy goal.<p>Fighting Racism is a worthy goal.<p>Fighting Inequality is tilting at windmills.
It's hard to argue against trivial equality, the state of being reduced to zero.<p>But that's not what modern equality proposes.<p>The argument against Trump is this case, in my opinion, void.<p>What he is is proof of systemic weaknesses and corruptions in our beurocracies.<p>The right sentiment, but the argument is too reductionist.<p>Sort of like saying If we're all dead, we're all equally alive. Not false perse, but it's an absurdity.<p>Edit: coming from an active conflict zone, I often comfort my western colleagues by arguing that everything we have that's worth anything is often built on blood sacrifice, and that the west is in need of fewer conflicts, because it learns and ends up prefering peace over conflict, as will my region someday. War a d conflict are natural to us but so is peace and love of kin.<p>I understand the author, but it's a bit grim. That said, hope for the best, prep for the worst.
It bugs me when people obsess over equality, and not the standard of living. Today's poor have it better than kings in many ways. Running hot water, air conditioning, much more.<p>If people would stop coveting what everybody else has, society would be much better off. Instead of saying "he has more than me" say "I have enough for my needs".<p>There will always be someone with more. Don't be greedy be grateful, or you will never be happy.<p>The commies obtained "equality" but did standard of living improve? No many people starved, and millions were murdered. They depended on the west for their very food. Now China is becoming less authoritarian and is able to grow.
An interesting article and some valid points, though I'm confused as to how they ignored the MASSIVE growth of equality due to the Industrial Revolution, or was that a catastrophe? I'm sure there are some that would think so...