On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:38:26PM -0500, Bryan D Caplan wrote: > 1. The less fundamental reason to be "hard-hearted" is that soft- > hearted people - even comparatively reasonable ones like Blinder - are > hypocrites. They fret and fret about "poor" Americans, but barely even > remember the existence of absolutely poor foreigners. There is not a > word in Blinder's book about admitting more immigrants. And all of the > "soft-hearted" social programs we have for domestics are one of the > leading arguments for restricting immigration. [...] > 2. The more fundamental reason to be "hard-hearted" is that the > Principle of Equity fails to recognize differences in MERIT. If there > were no efficiency consequences, why not equalize incomes? The answer, > I maintain, is that more able and hard-working people deserve more. > They earned it. It is insolent for the less successful to gripe about > it (or for the more successful to gripe on their behalf!).
I agree with your first point, but not the second one. I don't see why, efficiency aside, more able and hard-working people deserve more. Being more able and hard-working should be reward enough by itself. Lazy and incompetent people no doubt did not consciously decide to become lazy and incompetent, so why should they be punished for it, again if efficiency is not a consideration? > People give merit its due in academic competition, athletic competition, > artistic competition, and more. Why not economic competition? What is > so hard about showing respect to the "winners," and expecting the > "losers" to keep their disappointment to themselves? People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and they should certainly be able to participate, but what's the point of forcing competition on people who hate it, besides efficiency?
