The Concept of Equality

[Pidge]

There's been a lot of talk lately in Irish politics of the notion of "equality". I noticed on the thread "SF's crazy health policy" that people differ (even on an intra-party basis) about what exactly equality is and how best to achieve it.

This made me wonder; what exactly does equality mean to each person here?

Personally, I see equality as trying to give everyone as equal a start in life as is possible. From then on, they should be given a right to a minimum economic standard, along with the assistance they need to get above such a standard. In other words, the state should provide a floor for everyone, but not a ceiling.

I don't think it unreasonable to believe that someone who works hard and becomes a doctor, for example, should be paid more than someone who doesn't work and just sits around (I'm by no means referring to the working class or anything here). This doesn't negate the better-off person's responsibilty to the worse-off, but I do think it gives them a right to a better standard of living (excluding base things such as healthcare etc).

Others, I imagine would believe equality to be a total economic leveller, in that everyone should earn the same and be entitled to the same standard of living, regardless of work or skill. I see that as a dangerous idea, which would undermine incentive in an economy.

That's just me though. What does equality mean to you all and how is it achievable?

[FutureTaoiseach]

You will never get complete economic equality in a capitalist society. And nor should it be so. As McDowell stated a while ago. inequality is an incentive in the Irish economy. If like NI people were just getting jobs for life from the State, then there would be little or no incentive for entrepreneurship. The State interfering too much therefore harms an economy.

However I do agree every worker should be entitled to equality before the law in respect to labour-rights. This is not being enforced with only 21 inspectors, of whom only 40% are full-time. We have 94 dog-wardens. It seems that worker's rights matter less than dogs to this government.

In respect to equal access to health-care, this is only possible if:

A: Having no health-insurance and dragging us all down to the same poor level of access as provided by the public-healthcare system at present.

B: If we have universal health-insurance with the State paying the premiums of those below a certain income threshold. Means-testing should be used to ascertain who should get this.

I actually support B, while wishing to retain the right to choose my health-insurer. B is actually a good idea, and is widespread in mainland Europe, e.g. France, Germany. The countries with the great health-services in mainland Europe tend to work this way.

On another question of equality i.e. gay rights, I believe that gay people should have the same economic opportunities as everyone else and be treated equally before the law, except that I am unsure on the question of gay parenting. As a gay man myself I have no interest in having children and never will, while recognising others feel differently. Every child needs a mother and I would not have wanted to have been brought up by 2 fathers. 2 mothers is better, but there is a risk they will 'spoil' the child too much, leading to a lack of discipline. I think a male-female parentage is best, but a female-female one would be ok. However, otherwise I have no objection to gay marriages.

I don't fully accept the concept of equality for non-citizens with citizens. Citizenship by definition comes with certain rights, and only citizens should be allowed to vote for example, or get equal access to the social-welfare system. The resources of the State are not unlimited and the taxpayer has a right to expect the govt to avoid unnecessary burdens on the State.

[badinage]

I don't think it unreasonable to believe that someone who works hard and becomes a doctor, for example, should be paid more than someone who doesn't work and just sits around (I'm by no means referring to the working class or anything here). This doesn't negate the better-off person's responsibilty to the worse-off

What do you see as the basis of this responsibility?

For example, say I and another person are washed up on a desert island. Say I decide to work hard to improve my lot, I spend considerable man-hours building a decent shelter, and collecting food, and I begin farming. Say the other person is lazy and irresponsible, and doesn't bother building a shelter or farming. Do I have a responsibility to allow the other person into my shelter when the weather is bad? Do I have a responsibility to share the food I farm with him?

Now if he breaks his leg and he's unable to farm and build a shelter, then I would feel that I should help him. But if he's just lazy and couldn't be arsed, then I don't see why I have an obligation to share the fruits of my labour with him.

[Libero]

Personally, I see equality as trying to give everyone as equal a start in life as is possible. From then on, they should be given a right to a minimum economic standard, along with the assistance they need to get above such a standard. In other words, the state should provide a floor for everyone, but not a ceiling.

That's a pretty narrow and 'economic' view of equality but I know what you're getting at. I'd also tend to agree that this is a desirable liberal attitude to the question of what level of equality is desirable.

Thing is, what you've outlined isn't equality. It's what you and I see as a desirable level of equality. While I don't agree with radical egalitarians when they propose great levelling measures, they do have a point when they talk of equality and how to achieve it. Perhaps it would be best if more of us were unashamed to say that we aren't against a certain level of inequality, and if we were to meet the abuse that comes in response (as Charlie McCreevy found out) from people who like to think of themselves as all in favour of equality but who actually favour a certain level of inequality too.

And besides, if what you described was 'equality', and we accepted that certain places like the USA are even more unequal, how do we describe social democratic countries like Sweden? I think you'd have to concede that they are more equal than what you've described as 'equality'. Que that George Orwell quote...

[Pidge]

That's a pretty narrow and 'economic' view of equality but I know what you're getting at. I'd also tend to agree that this is a desirable liberal attitude to the question of what level of equality is desirable.

It is of course a bit glib and way too general, but it's a loose idea of what I think (obviously there are exceptions).

Thing is, what you've outlined isn't equality. It's what you and I see as a desirable level of equality. While I don't agree with radical egalitarians when they propose great levelling measures, they do have a point when they talk of equality and how to achieve it. Perhaps it would be best if more of us were unashamed to say that we aren't against a certain level of inequality, and if we were to meet the abuse that comes in response (as Charlie McCreevy found out) from people who like to think of themselves as all in favour of equality but who actually favour a certain level of inequality too.

That's true also. The point I was trying to get across is that I see an inherent inequality in someone working hard and getting the same reward as someone who doesn't. There's an inequality there, which is a little more subtle than everyone having the exact same thing. But you're right, what I've outlined is the degree of economic equality I'd prefer, as opposed to actual equality.

Que that George Orwell quote...

There's always time for Orwell!!!

What do you see as the basis of this responsibility?

For example, say I and another person are washed up on a desert island. Say I decide to work hard to improve my lot, I spend considerable man-hours building a decent shelter, and collecting food, and I begin farming. Say the other person is lazy and irresponsible, and doesn't bother building a shelter or farming. Do I have a responsibility to allow the other person into my shelter when the weather is bad? Do I have a responsibility to share the food I farm with him?

Now if he breaks his leg and he's unable to farm and build a shelter, then I would feel that I should help him. But if he's just lazy and couldn't be arsed, then I don't see why I have an obligation to share the fruits of my labour with him.

Well I think there's a vaguely-defined responsibilty of showing humanity to other people. That's not really the point thought.

Your analogy doesn't really apply, since these people on an island don't have dependents, for example. By not giving them things like housing, you disadvantage not only the lazy guy, but the people who depend on the lazy guy (children etc.). That doesn't really give those children equality of opportunity, which is something I favour (for what I hope are self-evident reasons).

[Gladstone]

There is threee concepts to understand with equality:

1. Proportional v Numerical equality

If you have 4 people on a desert island and all thats left to eat is one pie, surely its equal to divide it into 4 and give everyone one peice?
Thats numerical equality.
But what if 2 of the 4 were the greedy bastards who ate all the other food and the 3rd and 4th person is on the verge of starvation?
Surely it should be divided diffrently?
Thats proportional eqality.

Numerical Equality would mean a flat tax, proportional equality means progressive taxation that we (kinda) have here.

There is also the argument over Selective or Universal services.
Many people who oppose Universal Hellhcare for example would say why should rich people get free healthcare when they could afford to pay for it themselves?

Those people would say we should have a selective system like the medical cards, where it targets the poor with a means test.
Problem with this system is the threshold is ususally set so low that people who need a medical card can't get one.

So the argument goes if you have a properly progressive tax system, and a universal system, the rich pay back their fare share through tax and everyone is coverd.

2. Equality of Oppertunity, as is the basis of say...the CAO.

3. Equality of Outcome, this is usually an aim of socialists, it deons't mean they want everyone to earn the same, but that there is no huge gaps between rich and poor, equality of outcome is pretty hard to get.

[Libero]

The point I was trying to get across is that I see an inherent inequality in someone working hard and getting the same reward as someone who doesn't. There's an inequality there, which is a little more subtle than everyone having the exact same thing.

It's probably better to call that unfairness, IMO.

Gladstone makes a very good point about flat taxes. Most people (including, I have to admit, me) would instantly consider that policy very anti-egalitarian and therefore 'unequal'.
But this involves jumping to consider the outcome of the policy rather than its actual function.
Flat taxes are one of those things that manage to be very egalitarian in operation but very pro-rich in outcome.

I'd see the Leaving Cert and the CAO system in the same light. On the surface, it treats everyone perfectly equally. However it tends to reward those virtues and that type of hard work which comes easier to those from comfortable backgrounds who have already spent big on education. As a result, it tends to produce outcomes that promote inequality in society.

(This shouldn't turn into a thread on the CAO system, I just give it as an example.)

[Gladstone]

When you look at "work hard = get ahead" were into 19th century social policy or 1980s US republican polciy.

This simple concept ignores other factors like social background, education etc...

Of course some people do earn more because they work hard at school/college and have rare skills.

Just don't presume that because someone is on a low income that they are just lazy.

See "workhouse" for further info on this :wink:

[cyberianpan]

A caution on economics as being an indicator of equality ...

An argument taht I've seen brought up recently is:

Ability is inherited from family (be it whatever combination of nature & nurture)

Therefore what is the "correct" level of social mobility (e.g. say a child of parents from "bottom" quartile manual labour to "top" quarter professions)

Theoretically , post Thatcherism , it is reasonable to assume that we are approaching optimal equality of oppurtunity ...

However the actual social mobility figures don't map back to any of the current "standard models" of the Left/Right ... which points towards the possibility that we are asking the wrong questions ...

:idea:

[Pidge]

When you look at "work hard = get ahead" were into 19th century social policy or 1980s US republican polciy.

This simple concept ignores other factors like social background, education etc...

Of course some people do earn more because they work hard at school/college and have rare skills.

Just don't presume that because someone is on a low income that they are just lazy.

See "workhouse" for further info on this :wink:

Of course that's true, which is why I'm in favour of equality of opportunity. We can only responsibly initiate a "work hard = get ahead" policy when we have ensured that people have an equal start in life - that's the tricky bit.

Also, I don't know if that was directed at me, but I don't presume that someone who is on a low income is lazy. I specifically said I didn't think that!