Dear Friends,
It seems to me that there are two arguments about distributive justice.
One is that the goods of society should be distributed equally to equals. All those that are citizens of a society should share equally in it’s goods. This is characteristic of progressives, socialists and communists. They argue that, if all people are equal, then all people deserve equal distribution of the goods of society. To do otherwise is morally wrong.
The other is that people are not equal. We cannot be. I am different than you. It is the way it is. So if that is the case, to take from one who produces, lowering his or her standard of living, and give to one who does not produce is morally wrong… Just as stealing is wrong.
Our inequality can be summed up like this. You may be able to ski very well. I cannot ski well at all. The only way to make us equal, in skiing, is to disable you. Bring you down to my level. Then we can share equally in the joys of skiing. This lowers not elevates.
The one seeks to cut a pie equally, the other seeks to give to him who produces his or her share. Empirical evidence shows us that when you cut a pie up equally the pie grows ever smaller and smaller. Eventually getting so small the people are reduced to starvation. Examples include China and North Korea among others.
When the pie is distributed by what is produced the pie grows and grows. As the pie grows all people can have their standard of living raised. As long as distribution is according to production. If workers are being underpaid for their labor growth will be stunted. If labor is overpaid jobs will be lost. But when labor is rewarded for their labor correctly the pie will grow. I’m sure there is some bell curve that could be produced equating labor’s getting some percentage of the value of the labor they produce. Percent of labor’s cost relating to it’s production to growth curve.
But distributive justice goes even deeper. To take the libertarian point too far would be to say that if a person was starving to death… It would be morally wrong for him or her to steal food. I would argue that it would not be morally wrong. Provided there was no other means at hand to procure food and the person stolen from has more than sufficient food. Why not morally wrong?
Because of the absolute right to life. All other rights and sovereignty is subservient to this truth. God, Earth, the heavens or whatever provides for all. No matter who plants a seed… the seed will grow. No matter the hand that plants it, if the conditions are good, the seed will produce. Who we are is not relevant. What we are is not relevant. The relevant fact is that no matter who plants a seed God, Earth, the heavens or whatever will produce form our labor. God grants to all what they have produced. Mankind redistributes the fruits of labor. So if this is the case and someone takes the products of someone else’s labor, to give to someone who the taker feels is more deserving, the taker assumes the role of God.
From this it is plain to see that to redistribute is morally wrong… no matter the good intentions. The answer is always… to pay labor fairly and give to him/her that which he/she produces that does him/her and society the most good. Nothing else is morally correct.
