<story><title>Inequality in nature and society</title><url>http://www.pnas.org/content/114/50/13154.full</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>crdoconnor</author><text>You can divide the world&amp;#x27;s wealth into wealth that was created by human hands and wealth which was &amp;#x27;created&amp;#x27; by the planet (land, mineral&amp;#x2F;ore&amp;#x2F;oil deposits, etc.).&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see why it isn&amp;#x27;t fair to people keep the wealth they create and just divide up the wealth created by the planet equally.</text></item><item><author>dvt</author><text>(This is a slightly modified but highly relevant excerpt from a piece I wrote last year: Confusing Math with Morality[1].)&lt;p&gt;In What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources[2], Ronald Dworkin makes a distinction between &lt;i&gt;justified inequality of resources&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;unjustified inequality of resources&lt;/i&gt;. Dworkin borrows from Rawls, but the gist of his sentiment is summarized by SEP[3]: “Unequal distribution of resources is considered fair only when it results from the decisions and intentional actions of those concerned.” Conversely, provisions, gifts, bribes, and pure luck are conducive to an unfair (or unjust) inequality of resources.&lt;p&gt;For example, a state lottery is unequal — and creates an unjust inequality of resources — because it’s random. It’s trivial to come up with a social policy that always converges wealth to a uniform distribution[4], but the problem is that unless this convergence is driven by what Dworkin calls ‘ambition-sensitive’ forces, this social policy is profoundly unfair — even though it might &lt;i&gt;seem&lt;/i&gt; to be fair.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;dvt.name&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;confusing-math-with-morality&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;dvt.name&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;confusing-math-with-morality&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepage.univie.ac.at&amp;#x2F;herbert.preiss&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;Dworkin_What%20is%20Equality_Part2_Equality%20of%20Resources.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepage.univie.ac.at&amp;#x2F;herbert.preiss&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;Dworkin_Wh...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[3] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;entries&amp;#x2F;equality&amp;#x2F;#EquofRes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;entries&amp;#x2F;equality&amp;#x2F;#EquofRes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[4] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gaussianwaves.com&amp;#x2F;gaussianwaves&amp;#x2F;wp-content&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;Histogram-of-Uniform-Distribution.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gaussianwaves.com&amp;#x2F;gaussianwaves&amp;#x2F;wp-content&amp;#x2F;uploa...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gozur88</author><text>Say everybody has ten acres of land, because we&amp;#x27;ve taken all the land and divided it out among the world&amp;#x27;s population.  Let&amp;#x27;s leave aside, for a moment, that&amp;#x27;s pretty much impossible, since everybody will want beachfront property in Hawaii, say, and not a patch of desert in BFE.&lt;p&gt;Now say I have fifteen children, and you have one.  In the next reallocation, do we really divide out the land such that my family ends up with fifteen times the land your family has?  Think about the incentives that kind of scheme creates.&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there&amp;#x27;s a tragedy of the commons problem.  If we all own the land, or it gets re-divided every generation, I have no reason to improve it.  I&amp;#x27;ll get rich turning my land into a toxic wasted dump, because I don&amp;#x27;t have any interest in maintaining its value.&lt;p&gt;In the end, that&amp;#x27;s why we have property ownership.  People don&amp;#x27;t take care of things they don&amp;#x27;t own.</text></comment>
<story><title>Inequality in nature and society</title><url>http://www.pnas.org/content/114/50/13154.full</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>crdoconnor</author><text>You can divide the world&amp;#x27;s wealth into wealth that was created by human hands and wealth which was &amp;#x27;created&amp;#x27; by the planet (land, mineral&amp;#x2F;ore&amp;#x2F;oil deposits, etc.).&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see why it isn&amp;#x27;t fair to people keep the wealth they create and just divide up the wealth created by the planet equally.</text></item><item><author>dvt</author><text>(This is a slightly modified but highly relevant excerpt from a piece I wrote last year: Confusing Math with Morality[1].)&lt;p&gt;In What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources[2], Ronald Dworkin makes a distinction between &lt;i&gt;justified inequality of resources&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;unjustified inequality of resources&lt;/i&gt;. Dworkin borrows from Rawls, but the gist of his sentiment is summarized by SEP[3]: “Unequal distribution of resources is considered fair only when it results from the decisions and intentional actions of those concerned.” Conversely, provisions, gifts, bribes, and pure luck are conducive to an unfair (or unjust) inequality of resources.&lt;p&gt;For example, a state lottery is unequal — and creates an unjust inequality of resources — because it’s random. It’s trivial to come up with a social policy that always converges wealth to a uniform distribution[4], but the problem is that unless this convergence is driven by what Dworkin calls ‘ambition-sensitive’ forces, this social policy is profoundly unfair — even though it might &lt;i&gt;seem&lt;/i&gt; to be fair.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;dvt.name&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;confusing-math-with-morality&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;dvt.name&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;confusing-math-with-morality&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepage.univie.ac.at&amp;#x2F;herbert.preiss&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;Dworkin_What%20is%20Equality_Part2_Equality%20of%20Resources.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;homepage.univie.ac.at&amp;#x2F;herbert.preiss&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;Dworkin_Wh...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[3] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;entries&amp;#x2F;equality&amp;#x2F;#EquofRes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;entries&amp;#x2F;equality&amp;#x2F;#EquofRes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[4] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gaussianwaves.com&amp;#x2F;gaussianwaves&amp;#x2F;wp-content&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;Histogram-of-Uniform-Distribution.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gaussianwaves.com&amp;#x2F;gaussianwaves&amp;#x2F;wp-content&amp;#x2F;uploa...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>psyc</author><text>This seems like a meaningful distinction. Notably, ownership of land (by extension, resources) was historically decided by brute force, not by free economic transactions. Contenders killed each other until one got tired of the killing and acknowledged the claim of the winner.</text></comment>