Considering that the wealth of the wealthy is only possible in the context of a society, a nation-state context of today, they must fund the government which gives their wealth meaning. The 'wealthy' really have pieces of paper which are nothing more than IOUs or statements, whether that is currency, stocks, treasuries, or bonds. These things are totally meaningless, as is the concept of ownership of things like machinery without a means of either enforcing ownership claims or acceptance of those pieces of paper as currency.
So they are not only morally obligated to fund the system/society to the level that enables it to function to the benefit of all, but they have a self interest in doing so, as it mean funding that which gives their wealth meaning and therefore power.
Fairness means nothing in this context, as their wealth is dependent on the acceptance of the public of it. Is it fair that the public accept that some few should be mega-rich when so many are suffering so badly and could have their lives improved significantly through marginal outlays of some of that 'wealth'?
In the context of what you seem to define 'fairness' as, it is that of the individual to have property rights above all else in a society and have an authority enforce meaning of their wealth and their rights to that property. Fairness though could be defined in any number of ways and is really therefore meaningless when discussing what if 'more fair'. What would make more sense is discussing what is moral in the context of a system that enables wealth as we understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.