Income Inequality – Part One: Rule of Law

Eric Andersen Eric Andersen 10 Comments

Share

EricFrom Cicero to Augustine, from Adams to Martin Luther King, one of the principles of a just and prosperous society, is rule of law.

Rule of law posits that all men are equal under the law. Rule of law holds that if an action is immoral for an individual it is also immoral for an individual in government. No man is above the law. The Creator only has one ethic. He does not have one ethic for those in government and another for those outside of it. Indeed one need not be a believer to hold this idea. The atheist and the agnostic see indirectly in nature what the believer sees expressly in Scripture. It was this idea that led an individual from Virginia to pen seven words that form the basis for justice in a pluralistic society, the laws of nature and Nature’s God.”  This is the only legal system of which I am aware that allows individuals in a pluralistic society to coexist in peace. The prosperity created as a byproduct of this idea attracted millions of the world’s “tired and poor” to our shores.

Rule of law is disregarded today not only by Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VA) and Keely Mullen, National Director of the Million Student March, but by many of our friends. To Bernie 4them it is as out of fashion as three cornered hats. As styles and trends go, “divine right of kings” is “in”. Over the next few days I will add my “two cents” to the discussion of income inequality by addressing its cause, what I feel is being left out and how I think the discussion of income inequality should be properly framed. Ideas have consequences and if we are going to properly address inequality we must properly understand it.

Is there such a thing as “income inequality”?

Like Sen. Bernie Sanders I say “yes,” but this is where our views depart. Like economists from the Austrian economic school, I say we need to distinguish income inequality created by consumer demand and individual choice, from income inequality created by government violation of rule of law. One is moral and a natural part of a free society. The other is not.
_____

Read Part Two – Income Inequality and Consumer Demand

Eric Andersen is a member of the Central Committee of the San Diego County Republican Party and is the Co-Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego County and im2moro.com. He is a former Rock Church Citizen of the Year.

Share

Comments 10

  1. Eric, Let me give you an example of income inequality: Mr. X is a CEO of a publicly traded company that happens to be in one of my 401K mutual funds. Mr. X takes a 6 million dollar bonus on top of an equally obscene salary during a period of poor company performance. Mr. X has just robbed me.

  2. “Mr. X takes a 6 million dollar bonus on top of an equally obscene salary during a period of poor company performance. Mr. X has just robbed me..”

    Whoa ! Mr. X didn’t “take” anything; his compensation is negotiated by a Board of Directors, for whom you and your fellow shareholders voted. Your issue Sir, is with those Directors

  3. And, in any case, is, as an example, dwarfed by the titanic income inequalities achieved by public unions that are destroying our nation’s economy.

  4. Craig,

    I am glad you mentioned unions. If you graphed the decline in union participation, you would find that it almost exactly matches the decline in workers’ wages and the decline of the middle class. The income inequality that you bemoan is due to the fact that real wages for private non-union workers has actually declined since the 1970’s. It is true that a unionized worker earns more than his/her non-union counterpart, but only because the union worker’s wages have kept pace (barely) with inflation. However, even the union worker has not reaped the benefits of increased productivity, certainly not on the scale that upper management has.

  5. Brian, My bad. I will re-phrase that. The board of directors robbed me. Since the stock is in a mutual fund I have no say.

  6. While I believe that income inequality is an issue I also believe it has been created by the Federal Government and Federal reserve policy. But while we are on the subject of equality I find the whole topic in once sense kind of silly. Are we all equally intelligent or talented or athletic or beautiful? Why does anyone even feel the need to equal and why apply it just to income?

    Secondly I was brought up to believe that America was the one place on earth that everyone had an equal opportunity to be unequal. That through hard work you could achieve great things. Now the rules are written (by the government) to squash competition and favor the few. Not a level playing field.

  7. Jeff, That’s because the “rules” are not written by the government. They are written by the “few” who pass them on to their paid off lackeys in government. Thanks to Citizens United we can’t even know who they are. Conservatives call it a free speech issue.

  8. “Whoa ! Mr. X (CEO) didn’t “take” anything; his compensation is negotiated by a Board of Directors, for whom you and your fellow shareholders voted. Your issue Sir, is with those Directors.”

    Whoa ! Mr. X (public employee) didn’t “take” anything; his compensation is negotiated by a Board of Directors (City Council), for whom you and your fellow shareholders (voters) voted. Your issue Sir, is with those Directors

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.