Lane Kenworthy gets to the heart of the matter. He states that
even after we correct for discrimination, basic health and
welfare needs, et cetera, if inequality continues to rise, it
should be cause for redistribution. He says, “luck’s influence
means that redistribution is a justifiable remedy.” I disagree.
Moreover, I believe that we do not and almost never have enough
evidence (certainly not at the national level) to make judgments
about whether luck was the primary cause of a given inequality.
What philosophical principle tells us that it’s okay for the top
ten percent to make five times more than the poorest ten percent
(as an example) while earning 100 times the bottom ten percent
is not? And how much do you need to know about what generated
that disparity to decide? There is no way to infer useful
information about the nature of just or unjust compensation from
the raw factoid of an aggregate income distribution for a
nation, state, or even small community. That some income
inequalities may be associa