Should limiting income inequality be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom?

  • Yes, it should be.

    The reason for this is because when there is so many systems set up to support inequality, there cannot ever be true economic freedom in the world. Economic freedom is when everyone has an even playing field and can all have the same chances and opportunities in their lives. This would be ideal.

  • What is freedom?

    What is economic freedom if it causes people at the bottom of the rung to suffer more? At this point, it has become clear that true economic freedom is a self-serving game to those who are already in power, and they have no interest in caring for the rest of society.

  • Income inequality should be a top priority

    Limiting the alarmingly rising levels of income inequality in the United States should be a top policy goal, certainly one that is more important that maximizing economic freedom. Fiscal conservatives believe that by simply letting the economy run its course, there will be more money for all. Experience shows this isn't the case.

  • Yes It Should

    I believe limiting income inequality is a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom. People can not fuel the economy if they have no money to spend. It is like a game that needs to be reset every so often, especially with capitalism. The majority of the money is in a few peoples hands, the economy won't fix itself until that money is spread more evenly. Economic freedom is not as important as businesses would like to make you think.

  • Based on how people are approaching it now...

    While I want everyone to prosper, I want that prosperity to be based off of an individual's effort and talents.

    The slant of the media today seems to broach this as 'tax the hell out of the people that earned it to give it to the supposedly less fortunate, even if a lot of the less fortunate are actually less ambitious.'

    Basically, this is theft. It is saying 'you worked your ass off for this, and we are going to take it and give it to people who didn't'. Kind of demoralizing.

    As well, this is socialism of the highest degree. This isn't just ensuring that a person has health care, this is setting things up to make it so it no longer matters how hard you work, you end up being no farther ahead. Didn't work in the Soviet Union, what makes you think it will work now?

  • Even if it was possible to limit inequality it would be counterproductive.

    Where is Milton Friedman when we need him? I thought it was pretty clear that the benefits of capitalism prevailed but 80%' answering YES here suggests we right wingers have some serious work ahead of us.

    First I notice that none of the YES voters offer any actual mechanism to limit income inequality. I think in a debate asking which is more important between income inequality and economic freedom, it goes to reason that any argument in favour of reducing inequality should require a reasonably believable and practical method to achieve this.

    That is not the case if arguing in favor of economic freedom and it's a VERY important distinction. In the latter we need only NOT implement restrictions, we need only NOT restrict individual freedom and choices to maximize economic freedom, freedom of individuals to make their own choices to decide where to work or whether to risk starting a new business.. That should be the default or natural state of affairs. Only by creation of arbitrary borders and thus ruling bodies (before it was the noble and royalty, in communism the privileged are the political class but in capitalism (REAL capitalism) the elites,will be the entrepreneurs/capitalists BUT AT LEAST THEY ONLY GET THERE if they create or produce something that people want and buy.

    The importance of that fact is so understated and under emphasized. In ALL systems there are winners and losers, privileged and unprivileged. The notion that inequality is a by1product of and furthermore even increases because of capitalism is one of the greatest myths ever created and a cursory review of history shows this.

    But even iif this wasn't true and it was actually dearie ale to reduce inequality a supporter would still need to propose an actual way to it.
    The best predictor of a child's success: it's the success of your parents - which is to be expected, if one thinks about Darwin's theory and evolution. - which wolf pup or Lion cub has the best chance of being big and strong and the leader and gets to eat first have his choice of mates? Take a guess, it will be the offspring of the biggest and strongest wolf or lion.

    (And for the Nature vs Nurture debaters.. All you have to do is look at the Disney movie Lion King. When poor Simba's dad was killed saving him by the stampeding heard and his evil uncle tricked him to run away, despite being raised by some at best dubious characters and eating bugs etc.. Even then NATURE prevailed and he came back to rule! (and bag a pretty decent little lioness in the process!)

  • No, not at all.

    Income inequality is a ploy used to win elections. Balancing a fre market system with regulations to keep a cleaner enviroment whe protecting the consumer from corporate irresponsibility. Many point to countries with more social programs as success in combating "income inequality" but do not mention the VAT taxes, higher taxation on all income and actual lower corporate tax rates than the USA.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.