wealth distribution
The principles enumerated under the section on Human Decency are the fundamental requirements for all human societies.
Assuming these principles have been implemented, the evolutionary definition of fairness provides the premise from which to reason about wealth distribution. As previously, determined mutual support must be mutually beneficial. To be mutually beneficial does not require that all group members have equality in material goods or social status. It does, however, require that such inequalities that arise from the implementation of social rules, do not significantly compromise the reproductive or survivability success of those on the lowest end of the social spectrum as compared to those on the highest. That is, as increased wealth improves the reproductive and survivability success of those with high social status, the same degree of improvement must occur among those in the lowest social status.
In the Edenic human condition, there are only two issues – labor and innovation. First, all wealth is the product of labor. Second, good ideas can improve the effectiveness of labor in the creation of wealth but good ideas, in and of themselves, do not produce wealth. But human dynamics over time have produced economic structures that are exponentially more complex than the Edenic condition. In the current situation, how a society implements rules to govern wealth distribution will be determined by its understanding of how to marshal human dynamics in such a way as to increase wealth. That understanding will be composed of rationalizations that appear to justify its assumptions with regard to such things as income inequalities, inheritance rules, land ownership, investment returns, intellectual property rights etc. Therefore, a conventional wisdom will be created that incorporates these assumptions.
Because of the complexity of technological economies and the effects of randomness, it is impossible to accurately assess the value of individual contributions for the creation of wealth, and thus determine the fairness of wealth distribution at the level of individual compensation. Fairness can be assessed only by an analysis of the global effects of the economic assumptions. In those situations in which the operation of the economic assumptions produces a discrepancy among social classes on the issue of reproductive or survivability success, fairness has been violated.
As is apparent, this standard does not explicitly limit wealth accumulation among the elites. Indeed, the fairness requirement has no interest in the wealth distribution that occurs at the top of the social hierarchy. The interest of the standard is focused solely on the effect that social rules have on the conditions that prevail at the bottom.
Therefore, for purposes of fairness, the source of the inequalities in wealth is irrelevant, as are the assumptions of the economic structures that produce those inequalities. In both the simple and complex circumstances, the resolution is the same. Whenever the evolutionary standard of fairness is violated, wealth redistribution is required to achieve conformity to the standard. How the collection of funds for redistribution is accomplished is also irrelevant. That is, it could be accomplished by changing the assumptions in the conventional wisdom, or the conventional wisdom could be unchanged with a “tops down” progressive “taxation” of wealth to the degree necessary to produce conformity with the requirement when redistributed to the victimized classes.
However, how the actual redistribution is accomplished is of critical importance. All wealth acquisition must be a function of work. Therefore, the fundamental responsibility of any society is to provide work at a level of reimbursement that satisfies the standard for all members of that society. If the private sector is incapable of providing that work, that work must be created in the public sector. This should be no great problem since private sector dynamics are notoriously shortsighted, with the result that long-term concerns such as public infrastructure maintenance are chronically neglected. Therefore, competent public management should always be able to identify meaningful and necessary projects of long-term concern to remedy that neglect.
Mrs. Thatcher is famously reputed to have said: “There is no such thing as society”. If that were the case, then the right wing prescription for the “dog eat dog, devil take the hindmost” application of “social Darwinism” in human communities would be acceptable. But, alas, Mrs. Thatcher (never noted for her sparkling intellect and deep knowledge base) was wrong. A real understanding of the dynamics of natural selection in the human condition reveals human beings are deeply social in nature. Therefore, society does exist, and we ignore its implications at our peril.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution