I agree with your psychological roots to unfairness aversion. You ask what the classical liberal response to inequality would be. My first cut at an answer (which overlaps with what you later recommend):
My Answer: Modern societies are complex systems that require extensive division of labor and specialization which requires getting the right (best?) people in the right jobs and incentivizing them to excel for the benefit of themselves and others. People differ widely in goals, desires, abilities and experience, and if given freedom and opportunity will naturally differ widely in outcome in myriads of dimensions and careers. Any attempt to force equalization will require limits on freedom and extreme coercion and will result in the decay or destruction of society and the impoverishment of humanity.
It seems to me that this answer is morally compelling. It is a bit more complex than "inequality is bad", but at least it doesn’t hinge on the leftist linguistic sleight of hand where "unequal" is substituted for "unfair", and they hope nobody notices that the two are not the same. Inequality is not the same as unfair, and even a child could grasp the difference if given half a chance. Indeed forcing equal outcomes would only be fair if we also force equal contributions, which would be cruel and totalitarian.
And this hints at the real reason the left rallies around equality (of outcome on dimensions they deem important). It is a simple and a seemingly just goal which then excuses every possible intervention in society. It is a license for control and justification for power.
Had a longer comment but lost it somehow. Core value of your comment for me is in "Inequality is not the same as unfair, and even a child could grasp the difference if given half a chance." Hunter gather societies had different levels of skills as hunters, gatherers, teachers, cooks, etc., as do members of the same family.
And when one hunter was successful one day, he knew he might not be so lucky or skilled the next day. Plus, since his result was perishable and had to be shared with the wider group or be lost to all, he shared today in expectation of being a recipient tomorrow. So basically an exchange transaction carried off at different times and places. I have read the view that they did not share all of their respective outputs communally, but might exchange arrows for baskets, etc. when the product was not perishable. As nomads they were also limited by what they could carry or drag. But fairness could still be applied to these exchanges and interactions. But maybe not so much with outside groups?
I see foragers as competing for respect and prestige with the winners of the competition rewarded with better mating opportunities and more and healthier offspring and better choices of friends and cooperative arrangements. Losers were neglected, abandoned or forced on on their own.
I have to admit I haven't given much thought to the forager/ gatherer side of the shared skills and tasks of that time and place.
Also, if I remember what I have read correctly, the "gathered stuff" was not as subject to communal sharing between families, perhaps because it was not quite so perishable and supposedly did not have such a strong skill requirement compared to hunting?
Admittedly the Left has much to offer the common man. Particularly when the Right offers us Nikki Haley as an example if ttheir standard format.
My problems with the Left is their unbending stance as anti Second Admendment, and their relentless haterd of White men, even to the point of calling light skinned Latino men as being over privileged.
So maybe going back to hunter gathers will be one of the better things that comes after a forced social breakdown. 🤔
I agree with your psychological roots to unfairness aversion. You ask what the classical liberal response to inequality would be. My first cut at an answer (which overlaps with what you later recommend):
My Answer: Modern societies are complex systems that require extensive division of labor and specialization which requires getting the right (best?) people in the right jobs and incentivizing them to excel for the benefit of themselves and others. People differ widely in goals, desires, abilities and experience, and if given freedom and opportunity will naturally differ widely in outcome in myriads of dimensions and careers. Any attempt to force equalization will require limits on freedom and extreme coercion and will result in the decay or destruction of society and the impoverishment of humanity.
It seems to me that this answer is morally compelling. It is a bit more complex than "inequality is bad", but at least it doesn’t hinge on the leftist linguistic sleight of hand where "unequal" is substituted for "unfair", and they hope nobody notices that the two are not the same. Inequality is not the same as unfair, and even a child could grasp the difference if given half a chance. Indeed forcing equal outcomes would only be fair if we also force equal contributions, which would be cruel and totalitarian.
And this hints at the real reason the left rallies around equality (of outcome on dimensions they deem important). It is a simple and a seemingly just goal which then excuses every possible intervention in society. It is a license for control and justification for power.
Thanks Swami! You clarified the fuzzy issue that was eluding me.
Came here via Michael's 3/20/24 posting.
Had a longer comment but lost it somehow. Core value of your comment for me is in "Inequality is not the same as unfair, and even a child could grasp the difference if given half a chance." Hunter gather societies had different levels of skills as hunters, gatherers, teachers, cooks, etc., as do members of the same family.
And when one hunter was successful one day, he knew he might not be so lucky or skilled the next day. Plus, since his result was perishable and had to be shared with the wider group or be lost to all, he shared today in expectation of being a recipient tomorrow. So basically an exchange transaction carried off at different times and places. I have read the view that they did not share all of their respective outputs communally, but might exchange arrows for baskets, etc. when the product was not perishable. As nomads they were also limited by what they could carry or drag. But fairness could still be applied to these exchanges and interactions. But maybe not so much with outside groups?
I see foragers as competing for respect and prestige with the winners of the competition rewarded with better mating opportunities and more and healthier offspring and better choices of friends and cooperative arrangements. Losers were neglected, abandoned or forced on on their own.
you mean like middle school "mean girls" ? :-)
I have to admit I haven't given much thought to the forager/ gatherer side of the shared skills and tasks of that time and place.
Also, if I remember what I have read correctly, the "gathered stuff" was not as subject to communal sharing between families, perhaps because it was not quite so perishable and supposedly did not have such a strong skill requirement compared to hunting?
Admittedly the Left has much to offer the common man. Particularly when the Right offers us Nikki Haley as an example if ttheir standard format.
My problems with the Left is their unbending stance as anti Second Admendment, and their relentless haterd of White men, even to the point of calling light skinned Latino men as being over privileged.
So maybe going back to hunter gathers will be one of the better things that comes after a forced social breakdown. 🤔
We'll have to wait and see.