Our next orientation concerning equality also has a long
heritage on our American soil. The
lineage can be traced back to the 1600s.
Of the five orientations I am reviewing in these current postings (I
have already presented genetic elitism and earned elitism), this orientation does
not, in theory, justify inequality. I
say in theory because, as I will explain below, in actuality many argue that it
rationalizes existing economic inequalities.
This orientation is known as equal condition or, more descriptively,
equal opportunity/unlimited rewards.
Overall, this orientation holds that the individuals who enjoy some
superior human asset(s) do so due to their effort – as with the earned elitism
orientation – and their assets, if marketed, entitles them to above normal
considerations. The belief goes on to
include that such rewards should not be limited other than limitations imposed
by the vagaries of the economic or political system in place. In capitalist societies, that would be the
market. These rewards are purchased and
their enjoyment is determined by contractual – therefore, negotiated –
provisions of such purchases. Each party
in any contracted arrangement enters its negotiations on an equal basis (equal
condition). This attribute is defined by
the provision that all are to be treated equally before the law.
This last point originates from our early colonial
history. According to Daniel N. Robinson,
this belief in equal standing before the law is a central component of
Calvinist (Puritanical) thinking. I have
often commented in this blog that our belief in equality stems from the notion
that all men have the ability to give consent.
More descriptively, we have inherited a strong sense that despite all
the inequalities one observes around us – some are tall, some are short, some
are smart, some are not so smart, some are rich, some are poor – “God has given
each person sufficient reason to comprehend and to accommodate the requirements
of natural law, and we must have equal standing with everybody else in an
ordered commonwealth.”[1] This sense of an individual having the wherewithal
to deal with the requirements of law has been subject to refinement to the
point that today we attribute to the individual all of his legal prerogatives
but have dismissed any notion of a commonwealth. In short, this foundation has come down to us
as the natural rights construct which was described and explained previously in
this blog. What’s interesting is that in
terms of affecting public policy, this very idea of equal standing had a
stronger currency in the colonies before it took on any prominence in the
mother country.
In its present form, capitalists find this orientation more to
their liking. Today, it basically means
that since we have the right to property and can exploit it, we should go for
it – let’s get as much advantage from our property as the law allows. Let’s play this game of business and let the
chips fall where they may. Here are the
beliefs of this orientation:
1. Some people develop
talents and society should reward them according to how much they can legally
negotiate.
2.
Those in society who show a
higher level of a developed talent should be considered useful and there should
not be any preset limit on how much
they should be rewarded. Laws should
protect the negotiating power of each participant, individually, in any legal,
business transaction.
3. Tax levels should be kept
as low as possible to encourage people to develop and pursue their skills and
ambitions.
4. Standards of morality which a society lives by
should not limit a person’s choices or rewards; at least they should not be
restricted by law unless absolutely necessary in order to guarantee such
opportunities for all.
5.
Poor people are generally
those who cannot command enough pay.
That is, they have not developed those skills and knowledge that are in
demand by society. This is generally
rectifiable with education and determination.
If you recall
what has been explained in this blog about the natural rights construct, I
think you would agree that the above set of beliefs fits swimmingly with that construct. The beliefs rely heavily on liberty as defined
by classical liberalism. They limit
their concern over equality to the belief that every individual has equal
standing before the law, a distinction that separates it from the earned
elitism orientation. Other than the
benefits accrued from accumulated wealth mostly in the form of rents,[2]
there are no residual benefits from acquired status in the past. No one should be treated either with
advantages or disadvantages in relation to the law. All advantages are those that can be and are
purchased in a free and legal market.
These beliefs
emphasize the interests of the individual.
They have little or nothing to do with the general welfare of society
other than to make a somewhat vague argument that this orientation, as history demonstrates,
leads to the highest levels of wealth and benefit. When pushed on this, those who hold these sentiments
will argue that an economic system based on this orientation’s beliefs lead to
a population with sufficient incentive to generate the most prosperous economy
possible. This means more jobs as more
businesses open their doors and hire the help they need. Whether this result is true is an open
question. Not enough history, I believe,
has transpired to responsibly make such a claim. There are intelligent people who would argue
whether or not strict adherence to the orientation leads to the healthiest
economy. The fact is that the more we
allow this view of equality to flourish uninhibited, the more we see inequality
grow, as the more talented people in business use their skills to eliminate
competition which results in concentrated markets (fewer and fewer competitors)
among the various industries in the economy.
Some of that activity is geared toward exporting jobs as those who run
the large business entities seek cheaper wage rates around the world. This results in higher degrees of
concentrated wealth. It also undermines
the democratic quality within those societies that maintain “free”
markets. For example, in the US,
according to G. William Domhoff (Who
Rules America?[3])
the richest 25% of the population owns 87% of the wealth. Former labor secretary Robert Reich warns
that such concentrated wealth has curtailed the consumer spending of millions
of Americans and is instrumental in keeping the economy from performing satisfactorily.[4] As for depictions of concentrated wealth, from
time to time, the media gives us ample examples of this development as was the
case in the TV show, Selling New York.[5]
[1] Robinson, D. N.
(2004). American ideals: Founding a “republic
of virtue.” [a transcript
booklet] Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company/The Great
Courses.
Citation on p. 28.
[3] Domhoff, G. W.
(2009). Who rules America? Sixth edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[4] Secretary Reich makes this point as he is promoting
his latest book, Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few.
[5] A show broadcast on HGTV
network for several years.
No comments:
Post a Comment