With reference to liberalism, conservatism and socialism examine the claim that the government should try to make Britain a more equal society.
Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world. It is nothing new to suggest that poor people would benefit from Britain being more equal, but The Spirit Level argues that all British people, not just the poor, would be better off in a more egalitarian society. Ignoring the practical problems of creating this society, this essay will examine this claim with reference to liberalism, conservatism and socialism.
Liberals believe in foundational equality, but beyond this notion that we are born equal they prioritise freedom over equality, especially when it comes to economic equality. Classical liberalism in particular advocates a small government which allows market forces to flourish. Nozick describes tax as ‘legalised theft’, for it involves the state imposing itself on citizens, thus restricting their liberty. Modern liberals such as Rawls take a more compassionate view towards the poor advocating a minimum level of wealth below which no one should be allowed to fall. Modern liberals propose equality of opportunity as a means of ensuring that everyone has access to wealth in society, while allowing for the fact that people are different and will inevitably end up with different levels of wealth. Thus, most liberals would resent the interference required if the government were to make society more equal.
Conservatism also contains differing views on equality, though for the most part equality is not a priority within conservatism. Commitment to tradition, property and free trade – key values for most conservatives – is incompatible with a commitment to equality. Thatcher and Reagan served as flag-bearers for atomism, where society is reduced to individuals and their families, the ties that bind us to others becoming obsolete. While conservatives are skeptical of radical ideas and grand plans, some one-nation conservatives such as Disraeli have shown a commitment to raising the living standards of the poor. David Cameron has also deviated from traditional values through his brand of compassionate conservatism and the ‘big society’. One of his first policies was to include happiness in the surveys carried out by the national audit office – suggesting a belief that wealth shouldn’t be pursued at all costs. Despite these slight anomalies, most conservatives are extremely comfortable with inequality and would therefore resist government attempts to challenge it.
While one of the pioneers of new labour - Peter Mandelson – described himself as ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ most socialists support equality, though on a sliding scale. At one end of the spectrum are the Marxists who seek absolute equality – the poor have ‘nothing to lose but their chains’. This reflects the view that capitalism is wholly and inevitably exploitative, with the rich benefiting at the expense of the poor. At the other end of the spectrum are those socialists such as Ed Miliband who advocate equality of welfare, essentially providing a safety net for all members of society through a robust welfare state funded by progressive taxation. Between these points sits Tony Blair’s new labour, which justified business-friendly policies so long as all members of society were able to access wealth, for example through having a good local school. So most socialists do support government attempts to make society more equal, but recent ‘socialist’ governments have not pursued these policies with any vigour.
The evidence provided by the Spirit Level for government action to reduce inequality is compelling. Some of the criticisms of the book are valid. Income inequality is not the only key difference between UK/US and the Scandinavian countries for example; size and diversity of populations arguably count for more. The sheer range of data helps to deflect criticisms such as this however, and the differences between countries which are otherwise quite similar, such as Spain and Portugal, suggest that income inequality is influential, and that we would all benefit from government intervention to rectify this. The book concludes that the rich do more harm than good: "rather than adopting an attitude of gratitude towards the rich, we need to recognise what a damaging effect they have on the social fabric".
In conclusion, my view is that the vast majority of people would benefit from a more egalitarian society and thus redistributive policies should be pursued. It is difficult however for the government to do this without encroaching into our lives and liberty to an extent that most people would find intolerable. Thus it is my view that a more equal society can only emerge from within society, rather than being imposed by government.
No comments:
Post a Comment