Question

Should we equalize income for all Americans? Explain alternative arguments against egalitarian policies, such as natural rights arguments (John Locke and Robert Nozick) and utilitarian arguments (Arthur Okun).

Answer 1

Rawlsian argument for egalitarianism is that each individual should be given equal opportunity according to the level of skills they got. It means that jobs should meritocratically allocated, which means they should be allocated according to merit. But, every individual should given a fair chance to show their skills. This principle is known as fair equality of opportunity. If every individual will get an equal opportunity then it will decrease the incentive for the peoples with higher skills to compete in the market. Similarly, individuals with lower skills will not be willing to compete in the market. So, it will decreases the overall welfare of the market. Hence, everyone should only be provided an equal fair chance to perform.

Utilitarian argument states that every individual should be given an opportunity, so that it will increase the aggregate welfare of the society. Now suppose that there are two kinds of individuals in the society. One kind of individuals are getting lower satisfaction than the bliss point and other kind of individuals are on a bliss point that is getting maximum level of satisfaction. So, there is no point of giving more satisfaction to second type of individuals. Therefore, if the resources are distributed equally then it will not maximize the aggregate level of welfare in the society.

Therefore, according to the Rawlsian and Utilitarian approach, equalizing income for all Americans is not feasible. Hence, some extent of inequality should be there in the economy for its well being.