I was about to say where we could become better educated (by reading FT and this site.)

Also, I concede that income and economics are not everything, not even the most important thing. But they are the thing of this post, and when economics is the subject, I urge economic knowledge and logic.

To me, the burden of proof is on those who assume a problem in the first place. In a more-or-less free market, different levels of income are a sign of simple justice being played out. Those who contribute more receive greater compensation.

For in fact, there is a wide disparity in the value of individuals’ contributions. One can see it easily in any workplace, including the editorial staff of First Things. Reno is paid the big bucks because his contribution is more valuable than that of a recent hire working for him. What if all of us subscribers and contributors should “legislate” that our dollar contributions are contingent on equal pay among the staff? Or, let’s say, no greater difference than 10%, all the way from editor-in-chief to mail clerk (our particular threshold of inequality.) You can easily see that this is not only unjust, but that the magazine and this site would quickly fold up and disappear.

There’s a further good which disparity in income serves. Besides being an instance of justice, such disparity contributes to the common good, by making the economic system more effective. Differences in compensation signal where the value lies. A person contemplating a career sees that the rewards of being an editor are greater than those of mail clerk. This influences him to get educated and prepare for an editorship, thus improving the social capital of the community. His editorial skills not only benefit him, but provide a place where the mail clerk can also earn a living–and a place where the rest of us can become…

“I have already defined civil liberty; by equality, we should understand, not that the degrees of power and riches are to be absolutely identical for everybody; but that power shall never be great enough for violence, and shall always be exercised by virtue of rank and law; and that, in respect of riches, no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself: which implies, on the part of the great, moderation in goods and position, and, on the side of the common sort, moderation in avarice and covetousness.”

And

“If the object is to give the State consistency, bring the two extremes as near to each other as possible; allow neither rich men nor beggars. These two estates, which are naturally inseparable, are equally fatal to the common good; from the one come the friends of tyranny, and from the other tyrants. It is always between them that public liberty is put up to auction; the one buys, and the other sells.”

I’ve recently spent time among the libertarians, worshiping freedom. But the collapse of working-class families (where a lot of kids are raised) is making me appreciate the need for social cohesion.

To a large extent, freedom and social cohesion seem to be in tension. Can polices promote both values? And where we must make trade-offs, what principle should guide the trade-offs? What does the ideal mix look like?

I understand that cohesion can come from some level of shared circumstances (associated with equal wealth or social status), from shared world views (religion, patriotism, tribalism, a common threat, etc.). I hadn’t reflected on how shared public spaces – especially celebrated spaces – also can promote a shared sense of place, of home. That’s a nice addition.

Here’s a classic libertarian conundrum: Is it better for the state to rule by raw force, or by propaganda? Raw force is expensive and ugly – and honest. Propaganda is arguably cheaper and less brutal – but more invasive. But if the state doesn’t embrace the use of propaganda – appeals to religion, patriotism, tribalism, etc. – then it’s left with raw force.

For me, taxation is kinda force-like: the state extracts wealth and spends/distributes it whether you ascent or not. I appreciate the honesty of this approach. But I’m also coming to appreciate the limits of what can be accomplished with wealth, and wealth transfers. Even if poverty has contributed to the collapse of working-class families, it’s unclear that simply injecting money would provide a sufficient cure.

It looks like we need a socially constructive message – and if that sounds like propaganda, well, maybe that’s the price we must pay to ensure that kids grow up in stable homes.

“One is to use government to level things out and put people into roughly the same material circumstances, or at least less disparate ones. The cultural revolution in China during the 1960s was a particularly radical and brutal version of this strategy. Moderate redistribution and other uses of government to limit the distance at which the super-rich live from everybody else are of course far less destructive but reflect a similar impulse.”

Do you have this destructive impulse too or are you saying that where you stand is where the impulse dies?

How destructive we believe the impulse to be is a function of how much inequality we’re willing to consider just. Everyone believes it’s here and no further.