One of the more interesting notions that most of us seem to accept at one or another point in our lives is the notion that freedom and equality are incompatible.
I have heard that notion advanced in this manner: Jones has many marketable talents, while Smith has few marketable talents. Thus, if Jones is free to make as much money as he can, he will make more money than Smith. So, for Jones and Smith to be financially equal, something must done to limit Jones' earnings. But anything you do to limit Jones' earnings deprives Jones of his freedom. Consequently, you cannot have both freedom and equality at the same time.
Now, it seems to me the notion you cannot have both freedom and equality at the same time is one of those notions that has just enough truth to it to hoodwink many of us into generalizing from such examples as "Smith and Jones" above to whole societies. However, the more one examines the notion, the less warranted that sort of generalization might seem.
The problem is history.
The rarest complex societies in history have been those in which most people were more or less free. But those rare, relatively free societies have also tended at the same time to be more egalitarian.
Tocqueville, for instance, noticed that white males living in the America of the 1830s were both freer and more equal than white males living in either the England or France of the same period. Again, both male and female citizens of the Roman Republic seem to have been both freer and more equal than their counterparts living in the Roman Empire.
So the notion that freedom and equality are incompatible, while perhaps seeming to have some reason and logic on its side, does not always pan out in practice. But if that is indeed the case, then why is it the case?
I think the reason freedom and equality often go together in practice -- if not so often in theory -- is ultimately because of human nature. Plutarch observed 2000 years ago that no republic had ever long withstood a large gap between rich and poor. It seems that whenever such a gap is allowed to exist, some of the rich inevitably use their wealth to gather to themselves the reins of power. And, because they are far richer than most anyone else, there are few if any people who can effectively oppose them. Thus, they subjugate the rest of us.
If all of that is true enough, then it follows that equality is not the enemy of freedom -- at least not in practice -- but rather its companion. For, if there is a relatively small gap between rich and poor, then comparatively more people will be in a position to effectively oppose the usurping of power by another group of people.
At least, that's my guess why history seems to show that freedom and equality often enough go together in practice. What's your guess?
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
The Concentration of Wealth in America
According to the polling, most Americans have no idea how concentrated wealth is in America.
Apparently, we tend to think it is much more evenly distributed than it in fact is. So here's a fun figure: In 2007, one-fifth of Americans owned 85% of the privately held wealth in America.
In other words, the vast majority of Americans -- eight in every ten of us -- made do with only 15% of the nation's wealth.
That's quite an interesting fact, methinks.
I'm no economist, but it seems to me like our policies of shipping most of the well paid jobs off-shore while cutting taxes on the rich might be having consequences.
But whatever the cause of the concentration of wealth, I doubt what's left of representative democracy in America can long withstand such an unequal distribution of wealth.
Apparently, we tend to think it is much more evenly distributed than it in fact is. So here's a fun figure: In 2007, one-fifth of Americans owned 85% of the privately held wealth in America.
In other words, the vast majority of Americans -- eight in every ten of us -- made do with only 15% of the nation's wealth.
That's quite an interesting fact, methinks.
I'm no economist, but it seems to me like our policies of shipping most of the well paid jobs off-shore while cutting taxes on the rich might be having consequences.
But whatever the cause of the concentration of wealth, I doubt what's left of representative democracy in America can long withstand such an unequal distribution of wealth.
The Amazing Success of Trickle Down Economics
 |
| Source |
About 2000 years ago, Plutarch observed, "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." It will be interesting to see whether America has the political will to save its republic.
Sexism in the Skeptic Community
Hermant Mehta is in a position to know better than most people whether sexism is rampant within the skeptic community. So, I'm guessing he might be right, despite that the relative handful of skeptics I myself know are overwhelmingly non-sexists. But, if Mehta is right, why are there so many sexists among skeptics? That seems to be a real puzzler."Unfortunately, it [sexism] is [rampant within the skeptic community]. I say this from my own experiences within it, hearing stories from friends, etc." -- Hemant Mehta, aka "The Friendly Atheist".
Any ideas?
Are Misogynists Wimps at Heart?
They must be very macho men to verbally abuse an eight year old girl. I would like to meet them in person so I could personally congratulate these men on their macho. I would also like to ask them what they think of Yocheved Horowitz."The same broadcast featured a religious eight-year-old girl terrified to walk the short distance between her home and school, since she is subject to verbal abuse of ultra-Orthodox men who claim her attire is not sufficiently 'modest'." -- Source.
Horowitz, you see, is an Orthodox woman who does not buy into the bullshit of these Orthodox men. And apparently, because she is not a (understandably) frightened eight year old girl, she is sometimes able to shut them up.
Horowitz was on a public bus one day when one of these macho men told her to move to the back of the bus:
What do you think? Do you think maybe these macho misogynists are not really so macho unless they outnumber their victims?"Women to the back," he called out like a conductor. "To the back, to the back." He trembled with anger. A man sitting in the first row whose appearance revealed him to be a Gur Hasid, shushed him, with a finger to his lip. But the shouter paid no attention to him. "Men's area," he continued to shout. "Women to the back."
Now Horowitz turned around and said loudly and clearly: "What do you mean by 'men's area'? A geographical area?" she wondered. "What is mehadrin? Are you talking about an etrog, a lulav?" she queried, referring to two of the principal symbols used during the festival of Sukkot. "Nowhere in rabbinical law does it say that it is forbidden to sit behind a woman, not in the Shulchan Arukh and not in the Yoreh De'ah [two classical compilations of Jewish law]. What is written in the Torah and in rabbinical law is that it is forbidden to humiliate sons and daughters of Israel."
Like a deflated balloon, the man became quiet, and maintained his silence for the rest of the bus ride.
I have often wondered what relationship there might be, if any, between a man being a misogynist and a man being a wimp?
_________________
(H/T: Hoyden About Town)
Should We Legalize Polygamy?
Although I fancy myself a man of passions -- even strong passions -- loyal, experienced readers of this blog are sure to know that few issues -- no matter how controversial -- are likely to give me the vapours (except, of course, egregious mistakes in the noble field of epistemology). Therefore, it might come as something of a shock when I confess that the issue of legalizing polygamy has all but reduced me to my smelling salts.
The problem, you see, is I can't make up my mind whether I am for or against the legalization.
On the one hand, I can think of at least two powerful arguments for the legalization:
In 2010, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to reconsider a ban on plural marriage. The core issue was whether polygamy was bad for society. That is, whether anyone besides the partners to a polygamous marriage were harmed by it.
As part of its deliberations, the Supreme Court called upon the expertise of Joseph Henrich, an inter-disciplinary professor whose scientific credentials are so extensive they require 17 pages to list and are of such quality as would be lightly dismissed only by a madman or a Republican candidate for the presidency. That's not to say Henrich is above being wrong -- for who among us is -- but only to suggest his findings might be worth some consideration by reasonable folk.
Before being called upon by the Court, Henrich had never published on polygamy nor formed any reasoned and evidenced opinion of it. However, after reviewing a large body of evidence from several fields -- including psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics -- he reached several provisional conclusions. His conclusions, however, dealt with only one aspect of polygamy -- polygyny, or the marriage of a man to multiple wives (.pdf pp. 25):
That is, he suggests that monogamy -- which is historically much rarer among our societies than polygyny -- might be linked to democracy and gender equality (.pdf pp. 64): "Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes." The idea there might be a relationship between monogamy and social and political equality is intriguing, although I gather much more work would need to be done for the claim to be reasonably evidenced.
Now, I myself am a polyamorous individual. I have experienced at least three great loves in my life -- women I have been inordinately passionate about -- women who, at times, I have even loved more deeply and truly than ever I loved a well-formulated operational definition. Consequently, I'm conflicted by Henrich's findings.
Fortunately, I never had to choose between one of those loves and another since several years separated each from the other. But I can imagine how cruel it would have been had I been forced to choose. Yet -- if Henrich is right -- the consequences of legalizing polygyny seem to me dire enough to warrant the ban of it.
What do you think? Should we legalize polygyny? Why or why not? And, just out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself profoundly in love with two people at once?
The problem, you see, is I can't make up my mind whether I am for or against the legalization.
On the one hand, I can think of at least two powerful arguments for the legalization:
- As a general principle, I favor allowing informed, consenting adults to choose whatever marriage arrangements they deem best for themselves. By the same token, I believe that the marriage arrangements of informed, consenting adults should not be restricted -- unless a weight of reason and evidence demonstrates those arrangements to be injurious to others.
- It has been my experience that a person can have more than one great love in his or her life. But to restrict marriage to two people would seem to force some people to cruelly reject or deny at least one of their loves. Consequently, I believe restricting marriage to only two people should never be done for light and transient reasons -- but only for the soundest of reasons.
In 2010, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to reconsider a ban on plural marriage. The core issue was whether polygamy was bad for society. That is, whether anyone besides the partners to a polygamous marriage were harmed by it.
As part of its deliberations, the Supreme Court called upon the expertise of Joseph Henrich, an inter-disciplinary professor whose scientific credentials are so extensive they require 17 pages to list and are of such quality as would be lightly dismissed only by a madman or a Republican candidate for the presidency. That's not to say Henrich is above being wrong -- for who among us is -- but only to suggest his findings might be worth some consideration by reasonable folk.
Before being called upon by the Court, Henrich had never published on polygamy nor formed any reasoned and evidenced opinion of it. However, after reviewing a large body of evidence from several fields -- including psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics -- he reached several provisional conclusions. His conclusions, however, dealt with only one aspect of polygamy -- polygyny, or the marriage of a man to multiple wives (.pdf pp. 25):
- A non-trivial increase in the incidence of polygyny, which is quite possible if polygyny were legalized given what we know about both male and female mating preferences, would result in increased crime and antisocial behavior by the pool of unmarried males it would create.
- Greater degrees of polygyny drive down the age of first marriage for (all) females on average, and increase the age gap between husbands and wives. This generally leads to females marrying before age 18, or being "promised" in marriage before age 18.
- Greater degrees of polygyny are associated with increased inequality between the sexes, and the relationship may be causal as men seek more control over women when women become scarce.
- Polygynous men invest less in their offspring both because they have more offspring and because they continue to invest in seeking additional wives. This implies that, on average, children in a more polygynous society will receive less parental investment.
- Greater degrees of polygynous marriage may reduce national wealth (GDP) per capita both because of the manner in which male efforts are shifted to obtaining more wives and because of the increase in female fertility.
That is, he suggests that monogamy -- which is historically much rarer among our societies than polygyny -- might be linked to democracy and gender equality (.pdf pp. 64): "Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes." The idea there might be a relationship between monogamy and social and political equality is intriguing, although I gather much more work would need to be done for the claim to be reasonably evidenced.
Now, I myself am a polyamorous individual. I have experienced at least three great loves in my life -- women I have been inordinately passionate about -- women who, at times, I have even loved more deeply and truly than ever I loved a well-formulated operational definition. Consequently, I'm conflicted by Henrich's findings.
Fortunately, I never had to choose between one of those loves and another since several years separated each from the other. But I can imagine how cruel it would have been had I been forced to choose. Yet -- if Henrich is right -- the consequences of legalizing polygyny seem to me dire enough to warrant the ban of it.
What do you think? Should we legalize polygyny? Why or why not? And, just out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself profoundly in love with two people at once?
Income and Poverty in America
In 2010, executives at America's leading corporations enjoyed pay hikes of between 27 and 40%, according to the most extensive survey of executive pay in the US. At those rates, many American executives would see their pay double in a little under 3 years.
Meanwhile, for the same year, American workers in private companies enjoyed pay hikes averaging a little above 2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At that rate, the average American worker would see his or her pay double in somewhat less than 50 years.
"Go team!"
The news of executive pay comes on the tail of some even more cheerful holiday news. According to figures released by the Census Bureau today, 1 in 3 Americans (32%) are either low income or living in poverty.
Gee! Those "job creating" super-rich sure have put their tax cuts to good use.
On the upside, I came across a story in Mother Jones today about a small number of Wall Street professionals who have decided to join forces with the Occupy Movement in order to assist the 99% of us who are not super-rich. The Occupy Movement isn't winning yet, but it seems to be making progress -- if only an inch at a time.
Meanwhile, for the same year, American workers in private companies enjoyed pay hikes averaging a little above 2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At that rate, the average American worker would see his or her pay double in somewhat less than 50 years.
"Go team!"
The news of executive pay comes on the tail of some even more cheerful holiday news. According to figures released by the Census Bureau today, 1 in 3 Americans (32%) are either low income or living in poverty.
Gee! Those "job creating" super-rich sure have put their tax cuts to good use.
On the upside, I came across a story in Mother Jones today about a small number of Wall Street professionals who have decided to join forces with the Occupy Movement in order to assist the 99% of us who are not super-rich. The Occupy Movement isn't winning yet, but it seems to be making progress -- if only an inch at a time.
Is America Still the Land of Opportunity?
America is the land of opportunity. I once believed that. After all, I had an uncle when I was growing up -- a man who was much older than me, but who was living evidence that America was a land of opportunity.
My uncle was born around the turn of the last century. High school bored him, so he dropped out and instead went to work as an office boy. As an office boy, he made himself stand out by taking on extra chores beyond those required of him. Eventually his enthusiasm for work was noticed by his managers and, when he was a bit older, they offered him a job in sales.
My uncle approached sales the same way he had approached office work: He went the extra mile for his customers. They appreciated it and gave him so much business that he became the top salesman in his company. After that, he rose through the ranks to become sales manager, then district sales manager, then the vice president of sales. And he didn't stop there.
By the time he retired, my uncle was chairman of the board. A real life Horatio Alger story. Growing up, I didn't need to look further than my uncle to see proof America was the land of opportunity.
By most accounts, there was a time when it was true that people had a better chance of success in America than they did in other countries. Is that still the case today?
Not according to The Equality Trust -- which is a British organization that specializes in studying socioeconomic equality. After studying upward social mobility in many countries, The Equality Trust summarized their findings in this graph:
As you can see, the US ranks lowest out of the eight countries studied in terms of upward social mobility. And that means the best advice you could give anyone seeking to better their lot is "immigrate to one of those seven other countries".
You might also notice the chart shows that where income inequality is high, upward social mobility is low. I have nothing against people getting rich. But there seems to be something wrong when only a few get rich and the rest get poorer.
My uncle's generation is long gone now. And perhaps gone with it is America's leadership as the land of opportunity. I don't know if we will ever recapture that.
My uncle was born around the turn of the last century. High school bored him, so he dropped out and instead went to work as an office boy. As an office boy, he made himself stand out by taking on extra chores beyond those required of him. Eventually his enthusiasm for work was noticed by his managers and, when he was a bit older, they offered him a job in sales.
My uncle approached sales the same way he had approached office work: He went the extra mile for his customers. They appreciated it and gave him so much business that he became the top salesman in his company. After that, he rose through the ranks to become sales manager, then district sales manager, then the vice president of sales. And he didn't stop there.
By the time he retired, my uncle was chairman of the board. A real life Horatio Alger story. Growing up, I didn't need to look further than my uncle to see proof America was the land of opportunity.
By most accounts, there was a time when it was true that people had a better chance of success in America than they did in other countries. Is that still the case today?
Not according to The Equality Trust -- which is a British organization that specializes in studying socioeconomic equality. After studying upward social mobility in many countries, The Equality Trust summarized their findings in this graph:
You might also notice the chart shows that where income inequality is high, upward social mobility is low. I have nothing against people getting rich. But there seems to be something wrong when only a few get rich and the rest get poorer.
My uncle's generation is long gone now. And perhaps gone with it is America's leadership as the land of opportunity. I don't know if we will ever recapture that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)