> John Hull wrote: > > Um, no. Force would be bad. You could sweeten the > > deal for her, however, using perhaps pecuinary > > benefits to level the field. > Assuming you are not just joking, this implies that things such as "ability to atract mates" should be taken into account when redistributing income today. After all, you acknowledge that money may "sweeten the deal" for any potentila partner, thus it would be unfair to take money from a rich, ugly man (or woman) and give them to a poor, good looking man (woman), since the former needs them to improve his / hers chances in the mating game. And while we are at it: why not also control for happines? What is all this focus on money? - why strive for equality only on that parameter and not the more "important" ones??
- jacob braestrup
