On Equality

1793_Equality_anagoria

In any society with an uneven distribution of wealth, there is naturally a smaller group of individuals that possess far more than an equal, or even fair share of the wealth.

In a materially uneven society, how can one argue against the notion, morally and ethically, that say the 5% that owns 90% should give up (read spend on more useful, tangible,beneficial things) between 5 and 25% (or much more) of their extravagant, opulent wealth, so that we can sort out the various ailments of society, from education to health; from the environment and animals, to anything.

It is impossible to  argue that a slight reduction of the extravagance and luxury of the few has more moral significance, more good, than the essentials and base luxuries of the masses, the rest of the whole — society? It is the distinct opposite of the general utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.

For centuries the few have gotten rich off the impoverished many, but once too much has flowed in one direction (this is the slight of hand that underlies capitalism), as the extent of the inequality reaches material extravagance of ever-greater luxury, in greater numbers, when it get to the points where less and less proportion of the population over a greater and great share, concessions are made, but nonetheless, the overall flow of wealth to the few continues. To accumulate too much wealth, and not use it for good, is doing a disservice to your fellow beings.

The illusory nature of consumerism and consumption hide the fact that we are impoverished, our health exploited, indebted, and conditioned. Sometimes a temporary or minor concession is made, a minute reversal of the direction of wealth brings slight more equality, but only the minimum to keep order and avoid chaos.

This situation would be difficult enough to deal with, however coupled with continued unsustainable population growth, means we are constant fighting an uphill battle in terms of living space resources, our unsustainable burden on the enviornment means if we want to avoid doing colossal swathes of damage to both our own species and the entire world ecosystem and its billions and trlilions of inhabitants, we have to recognie this problem and act on it such before it is too late.

We cannot morally justify one individual having so much wealth when billions have almost nothing.

It turns out that almost of us can have more, and only a tiny group will have slightly less, however, STILL more than 95%  and still more than plenty – of the insanely more well off smaller group all collectively give up half their wealth. If we can disentangle ourselves from the morally dry and regrettable notion of consumerism and endless consumption, we can overcome the challenges facing our world.

“Communism” is often interpreted very simplistically as the idea that everyone has the same, is not really possible or desirable – there would still be natural small fluctuations on equality, plus how does one measure it – the animal guy who have 4 acres for his animals, or the jeweller who has all his precious metal (but have slightly less money than they currently do) – all this can be achieved by just REDUCING the level of inequality, so that say 10% of the population owns 20% of the wealth, just a much narrow band of inequality, that’s all – it is not that radical, very little of importance (status, relative wealth) is affected for the rich, who regardless, economically, logically still has it better off than most – one can argue there should be 5 times the wealth gap just as pointlessly at 100 times.

Those “with something to lose,” regardless of the fact that the majroity of one’s wealth is doing nothing except sitting in a bank balance, or within land and property, may rightly object to the “theft” of their hard-earned wealth in this scenario. However, what they fail to grasp is the nature of the whole, the nature of their own being, understand elementary concepts such that superfluous wealth not only brings no extra benefit, but means the have further to fall. This greedy accululation of wealth is very selfish in its nature; in order to appreciate their position we must understand their motivation and reasons for the importance they place on accumulating money. Status, superiority, ego-driven

Agree? Disagree? Got something to add? Please share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s