Outline and assess the arguments that a liberal democrat might use to justify inequality.

Outline and assess the arguments that a liberal democrat might use to justify inequality. A liberal democrat is someone who embraces the constituent parts of liberal democracy: liberalism, democracy, autonomy and property; and it is widely considered that inequality, defined as the lack of equality 1 in being the same in quantity, size, degree, value, or status 2, is primarily borne from the capitalistic edge of liberal democracy. Inequality is farreaching and a common consequence of a capitalist system, and prone to oscillation; as recently as last week, the OECD revealed that the top 10% have incomes 12 times greater than bottom 10%, up from eight times greater in 1985 3. With this evident vacuum in equality, and the understanding of what a liberal democrat stands for, we can herein explore how such inequality could be justified, as well as examine the limitations and possibility of the liberal democratic argument. One of the principal arguments made by the liberal democratic school of thought is that inequality from private ownership of property is a price worth paying in order to protect other, greater aspects of liberal democracy; particularly as it cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them 4. Locke s argument, that there is a requirement of having very strong natural rights to property, is so intrinsic to the liberal democratic view that it is a truly unique legitimation for inequality. As property ownership is considered a right and an extension of one s liberty, no government has the right to interfere. In fact, Nozick believes one of the few duties of minimal state 5 is to enforce property rights. Therefore, this encompasses the ownership of money, and so re-distributive taxation would be categorized as a violation of individual rights 6. Government has no business in intervention particularly when it compromises an individual s liberty, with Friedman arguing such a case to be a clear case of using coercion to take some in order to give others and thus to conflict head-on with individual freedom 7. Some liberal democrats would even say that such inequality is as a result of one s own negligence; with capitalism undermining status and introducing social mobility 8, and thus inequality is simply a personal failure. Other liberal democrats would simply champion it as being the best system; its competitive spirit reflective of human spirit, with inequality as a result of a laziness or absence of industry. Such an attitude is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover s call for rugged individualism in the face of the Great Depression; a Darwinian perspective, where initiative can achieve a better material existence. 1 Oxford English Dictionary; OUP Oxford; New ed of 2 Revised ed edition (11 Aug 2005); page726 2 Oxford English Dictionary; OUP Oxford; New ed of 2 Revised ed edition (11 Aug 2005); page481 3 The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/income-inequality-growing-faster-uk 4 Locke, John; Second Treatise of Government; Hackett Publishing Co, Inc (1 Jan 1980) page81 5 Nozick, Robert; Anarchy, State, and Utopia; Wiley-Blackwell; New Ed edition (4 Jan 2001); page149 6 Wolff, Jonathan; An Introduction to Political Philosophy; OUP Oxford, 2nd Revised edition, 2006; page134 7 Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; (November 15, 2002); page174 8 Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; (November 15, 2002); page172

However, in justifying inequality, this liberal democratic argument fails to acknowledge what Marx categorizes as wage-slavery ; those who are unable and have no means to alter one s position, when on the lowest of incomes. Therefore, this liberal democratic view could be seen as simplistic, as it fails to understand that not all individuals have equality of opportunity in altering their path; as long as the predominant relation between capitalist and labour, between propertied and propertyless, genuine human self-determination was an impossibility 9. While the term slavery could be interpreted as hyperbolic, the position of the proletariat, here, is indicative of imprisonment, and so, by definition, would be the antithesis of liberty something that capitalism was meant to safeguard. In this sense capitalism could be viewed as being counter-intuitive; at least in the case of the substantial majority of workers. Liberal democrats would argue that a capitalist system is consistent with the liberal democratic sentiment of promoting pluralism and tolerance of difference; rather than facilitating a homogenous bloc of wage-slaves. However, private property results by analysis from the concept of alienated labour 10, but liberal democrats would identify private property as a by-product of the desire to enhance liberty, autonomy, and liberalism; as well as promoting pluralism; and therefore, inequality is in fact irrelevant to a liberal democrat. Pirie, in his book Zero Base Policy, believes that people on the minimum wage, or on half or less of the average wage, shouldn t be paying income tax at all 11, something that noninterventionist liberals would show great discomfort at. However, this addresses much more than financial inequality; simultaneously affecting equality of opportunity. Holden affirms that social structure gives immense advantages to some individuals in the pursuit of economic interests 12, and this is certainly true in that your parents wealth and position is completely beyond your control, yet has a potentially huge influence in shaping your life. Warren Buffett, the American entrepreneur and philanthropist, categorizes this as the Ovarian Lottery, and he believes this is the greatest inequality: of opportunity. This deficit in equality is what contributes to class entrenchment, and can persist; something that the liberal democratic stance overlooks. Therefore, in pursuit of an egalitarian plateau 13, where all individuals have the same opportunity to achieve, intervention would be required; counter to the liberal democratic stance. Rawlsian theory, however, points to government interfering when necessary to protect liberty and justice; and therefore some action, like the provision of universal education, could be viewed as legitimate. Some liberal democrats, while not desiring to pursue a collectivist system, would provide a mechanism for both equality of opportunity (through education), and equality in the eyes of the law (through a fair trial). Friedman lays particular emphasis on education, affirming that it would make capital more widely available and would thereby do much to make equality of opportunity a reality, [and] to diminish inequalities of income and wealth 14. A 9 Smart, Paul; Mill and Marx; Manchester University Press; First Edition edition (24 Jan 1991); page7 10 Smart, Paul; Mill and Marx; Manchester University Press; First Edition edition (24 Jan 1991); page55 11 Pirie, Madsen; Zero Base Policy; Adam Smith Institute (22 July 2009); page10 12 Holden, Barry; Understanding Liberal Democracy; Philip Allan; First edition (June 1988); page29 13 Swift, Adam; Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Students and Politicians; Polity Press, 2nd Edition, 2006; page93 14 Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; (November 15, 2002); page107

meritocratic system based on equalizing opportunity raises the issue of which dimension of inequality needs addressing if any. It is clear that financial inequality does exist, evidenced startlingly by Pen s Income Parade (1971), where people are ordered in single-file by income. To a liberal democrat, however, if, hypothetically, everyone did have equality of opportunity, then such an outcome as Pen s representation is, in fact, acceptable; because there is no-one to blame, other than the individual. Importantly, though, the wider impact of a centralized economy and government on the features of liberal democracy is also required. To combat financial inequality it would require the compromising of, not only property ownership (considered by liberal democrats as a fundamental right ), but also of people s capacity to pursue their own preferences; and this cost would be greater than the existence of inequality. Therefore, this capitalist edge is required to enhance the aspects of liberal democracy, in choosing what goods and services are desirable to you. If we are all obligated to pursue one route of living, it is, by definition, not possible to experiment for our own advantage. Based on the rationale that people are selfish 15 as well as Mill s belief in having the absolute freedom over his own body and mind 16, the better but different - ideas would not be given the opportunity to flourish, for the sole reason of keeping all individuals at an equalized level. The Darwinian system of liberal democracy would permit the survival of the best ideas, while also causing inequalities through failed ideas. Some would point to Locke s idea of consent of the governed on the basis that the people support the government, in exchange for the government protecting the welfare of the people. Therefore, some would argue that a safety-net should be provided to ease poverty as a result of those failed ideas though welfare payments. Some liberal democrats take non-interventionism further, however, by prohibiting all re-distribution; something consistent with Mill s belief in the laissez-faire system, whereby there is no protection for anyone from a normal functioning market or plain economic competition 17. Therefore, it is clear that there is a degree of factional division over the extent of non-intervention in matters on financial equality; the individual as sovereign being the starkest reason, but insufficient cause to provide relief for the destitute and helpless. Friedman argues that the economic progress achieved in capitalist societies has been accompanied by a drastic diminution in inequality 18, and, therefore, it could be understood that inequality is just a part of the maturation of civilization. Kuznets actually concludes that economic inequality increases while a country is developing, and then after a certain average income, inequality begins to decrease the relative income of a progressively diminishing top proportion of total population, their effect on the relative share of a fixed top proportion of the population is much reduced 19. Marx would brand such a justification, as inequality being a temporary feature of capitalism, being grossly misleading; particularly 15 Swift, Adam; Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Students and Politicians; Polity Press, 2nd Edition, 2006; page130 16 Mill, John Stuart; On Liberty; Cosimo Classics (1 Nov 2005); page22 17 Wolff, Jonathan; An Introduction to Political Philosophy; OUP Oxford, 2nd Revised edition, 2006; page133 18 Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; (November 15, 2002); page169 19 Kuznets, Simon. 1955. "Economic growth and income inequality"; American Economic Review 45; page10

as capitalism facilitates the exploitation of the proletariat, and especially as such a model is cyclical, oscillating from boom to bust. Willing for working men of all countries [to] unite! 20 as being the only means of breaking this system, Marx assumes that as a result of the abolition of private property, there would henceforth be equality. However, while such a view would characterize all property as theft 21, it is not a certainty that equality will be realized. As a consequence of such a clear reliance on the state, and although now protected from the cyclical patterns of capitalism, there is the possibility of a different kind of oppression: from government. Rather than inequality resulting from a rich land and capital-owning class, a central entity or individual would have to be the arbitrator of the distribution of property; and in this sense, there would be the likely emergence of a bureaucratic class, which then has the mechanisms of power, which have the capacity to oppress. Marx himself famously declared no ruling class will give up power without a fight 22 ; and surely this message is applicable to a collectivized system of management? Liberal democrats would argue that the opportunity to gain private property strengthens democracy and freedom; economic freedom is also an indispensable means towards the achievement of political freedom 23, and if wholly beholden to government, we will struggle live independent lives. One could also say that at least the liberal democratic model of a capitalist system is broadly on the basis of achievement though work ethic or skill; rather than on the simple basis of holding a position in government. A centralized system is also studded with imperfections, and so raises the questions: what would be better 24? Initially, an assessment of the liberal democratic views on inequality seems to hinge on the understanding that liberty and equality being very much inextricably linked; two trade-offs. While Wolff states that obvious answers to the question might be disastrously naïve 25, and reasons are far-reaching, it is clear that attention centres on the state intervention needed to correct inequalities and again, the fundamental argument threatens individual liberty 26. With regard to intervention in inequalities in raw accumulated wealth, liberal democrats do not approve (particularly the libertarian strain); however, with the purpose of attaining a system of equality of opportunity, there is certainly an egalitarian argument. Here, it is clear that the sense of equality is important. Marxists would, of course, brand any existence of inequality as anti-human, and corrosive to the natural human spirit; however, one of the most striking arguments made, is that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom 27. The preservation of liberty, whilst simultaneously balancing equality of 20 Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich; The Communist Manifesto; Oxford Paperbacks, New Ed./edition, 2008; page39 21 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph; No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism; Edited by Daniel Guerin, translated by Paul Sharkey. (2005); page56 22 International Socialist Review: Lenin s theory of the party By Todd Chretien (Issue 56); Published, November December 2007 23 Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; (November 15, 2002); page8 24 Wolff, Jonathan; An Introduction to Political Philosophy; OUP Oxford, 2nd Revised edition, 2006; page149 25 Wolff, Jonathan; An Introduction to Political Philosophy; OUP Oxford, 2nd Revised edition, 2006; page133 26 Holden, Barry; Understanding Liberal Democracy; Philip Allan; First edition (June 1988); page30 27 Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; (November 15, 2002); page4

opportunity, is the true measure of a liberal democrat; and, while freedom is one value among many 28, it is the cornerstone of liberal democracy, and thus a sweetener to the inevitable existence of financial inequality. By Leighton Hughes Bibliography: Friedman, Milton; Capitalism and Freedom; University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (November 15, 2002) The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/income-inequalitygrowing-faster-uk Holden, Barry; Understanding Liberal Democracy; Philip Allan; First edition (June 1988) International Socialist Review: Lenin s theory of the party By Todd Chretien (Issue 56); Published, November December 2007 Kuznets, Simon. 1955. "Economic growth and income inequality" American Economic Review 45(1) 1-28. Locke, John; Second Treatise of Government; Hackett Publishing Co, Inc (1 Jan 1980) Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich; The Communist Manifesto; Oxford Paperbacks, New Ed./edition, 2008 Mill, John Stuart; On Liberty; Cosimo Classics (1 Nov 2005) Nozick, Robert; Anarchy, State, and Utopia; Wiley-Blackwell; New Ed edition (4 Jan 2001) Oxford English Dictionary; OUP Oxford; New ed of 2 Revised ed edition (11 Aug 2005) Pirie, Madsen; Zero Base Policy; Adam Smith Institute (22 July 2009) Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph; No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism; Edited by Daniel Guerin, translated by Paul Sharkey. (2005) Smart, Paul; Mill and Marx; Manchester University Press; First Edition edition (24 Jan 1991) Swift, Adam; Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Students and Politicians; Polity Press, 2nd Edition, 2006 Wolff, Jonathan; An Introduction to Political Philosophy; OUP Oxford, 2nd Revised edition, 2006 28 Swift, Adam; Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Students and Politicians; Polity Press, 2nd Edition, 2006; page67