Since we're in the Lesser Depression and since inequality is at historic highs, inequality is finally on everyone's mind (though sadly, not yet on the agenda). The push back is definitely noticeable among the usual suspects - Fox News, Heritage Foundation - but it has also roused a traditional libertarian argument; namely, that concern regarding inequality is an expression of envy. This is absolutely backwards - not only is concern regarding inequality not a pathology, failing to be concerned about inequality is deeply immoral.
The proto-libertarian Austrian economists fully embraced the "envy thesis" - the notion that advocacy for redistribution of any kind is an expression of envy. The idea is so simplistic and backwards as to be laughable - it has only survived (and, in fact, thrived) because it's useful to robber barons. Therefore, when Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises expressed the "envy thesis" in 1957, The Economist and even the National Review were appropriately dismissive:
The Economist said of von Mises: "Professor von Mises has a splendid analytical mind and an admirable passion for liberty; but as a student of human nature he is worse than null and as a debater he is of Hyde Park standard." Conservative commentator Whittaker Chambers published a similarly negative review of that book in the National Review, stating that Mises's thesis that anti-capitalist sentiment was rooted in "envy" epitomized "know-nothing conservatism" at its "know-nothingest."
As Noah Smith recently noted, this "envy thesis" is ubiquitous among self-styled libertarians. Here is Bryan Caplan of the Koch-funded Cato Institute:
If people envy people richer than themselves, I say we should fight envy, not inequality.
And in a separate publication, Mr. Caplan argued - in complete seriousness - that people who express concerns regarding inequality should be socially shunned:
Instead of praising those who "raise awareness" about inequality, perhaps we should shame them, like the office gossip, for spreading envy and discontent.
The underlying assumption of the "envy thesis" is that inequality should be supported - indeed we should shun those who "raise awareness" about inequality - because the wealthy earned their wealth. Here is Dave Henderson, also of the Koch-funded Cato Institute, making this assumption explicit:
Then, in my late teens, I started to learn economics. I started to understand that the vast majority of income in a relatively free society is earned.
Oh, where to start? First off, the idea that the rich earned their wealth is so dubious as to be laughable. Let's take George W. Bush, for example. I don't even think I need to unpack that, right? Dubya - like most of America's aristocracy - "was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple."
Next, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the wealthy did earn their wealth, there's a problem with the numbers. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated, there are going to be many talented people who aren't rewarded. The spoils go to a handful of people and even if they are exceptionally talented (a dubious claim), they are not the only talented members of society. Clearly, many with equal, if not greater, talents lose out through no fault of their own. It's really just the maths.
Now I suspect, if pressed, most libertarians (almost all Koch-funded these days) would agree that there should be equality of opportunity. In fact, that's always the plutocratic mantra - equality of opportunity, not of outcomes. However, I sincerely doubt they'd be willing to take even the first steps towards that very radical solution. For example, I doubt they'd be willing to completely eliminate inheritance. And that would be required - inheritance would have to be abolished altogether, as would separate schools for the wealthy. In fact, as Paul Krugman notes, the project of creating even approximate equality of opportunity would require radical changes to American society.
But even if libertarians would agree to such radical changes, that's not the point. Even if we could create a perfect meritocracy, we shouldn't. Such a society would be deeply immoral. As John Rawls (and before him J.S. Mill) emphasized, it's not just inherited wealth that's not earned - merit has nothing to do with our nationality, our gender, our race, our intelligence, whether we're able-bodied or attractive and on and on. Even if the wealthy did earn their wealth (which they didn't), does that mean someone who is mentally or physically impaired should be required to fend for themselves? Shouldn't we all contribute to make sure the sick, the elderly, the infirm, the unlucky don't suffer? That's not envy. It's not a pathology. It's decency.
To think about those concerned with inequality as "envious" (and thus, pathological) is absolutely backwards - to be unconcerned with inequality is immoral. Distribution of goods in society is a question of justice (known as distributive justice - see e.g. John Rawls, but also every political philosopher ever). And the social unrest that accompanies this growing inequality is not an expression of envy, it's a reaction to fundamental injustice. And that's why inequality matters.
Cross-posted at Plutocracy Files