[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

No one is denying that wealth is unevenly distributed. The argument is that presence of inequality doesn't prove an unfair system. You who wish to change the system carry the burden to prove that the system is the cause of the inequality and that your proposed changes will fix it.

Do you need the list of the places again? It's a cross-section of humanity, not a list of the worst places in the world.

Again, the corruption in US Politics is all you need to know why the imbalance needs corrected. It's not about "Equality", it's to limit Inequality in order to keep a tiny minority from dominating the majority.

[Psudo]

Specifically what corruption are you talking about? What needs to be changed in the existing system to reduce that inequality?

Zipperfish wrote:

I just don't think he makes a case at all as to why discrimination should be morally condemned. He presupposes it.

The topic of this essay was the causes of income inequality. He presupposes discrimination to be wrong because 1) it's not a controversial statement, and 2) it's immaterial to his thesis. Or perhaps because his thesis is to differentiate between immorality and causality, which accomplishes the same thing.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

The topic of this essay was the causes of income inequality. He presupposes discrimination to be wrong because 1) it's not a controversial statement, and 2) it's immaterial to his thesis. Or perhaps because his thesis is to differentiate between immorality and causality, which accomplishes the same thing.

Perhaps you're right and I've mischaracterized him. I don't really know who he is. When I read the piece, I noted that if you removed the moral prohibition against discrimination (which, as I said and I could be wrong, seemed almost an afterthought to me) then you had here a pretty good argument for imperialism and slavery (if, indeed, the goal was to reduce income inequality). Perhaps by examing that aspct, I missed his thesis.

It was believed at one time that slavery (and thus discrimination) had the positive sanction of God.

I, myself, consider discrimination based on race or appearance ("nature") wrong, but I have no problem discriminating against cultures ("nurture"). I realize that I'm walking a pretty fine line their a lot of times.

[Psudo]

It seemed to me that he was criticizing the confidence behind the conclusion that inequality proved discrimination as empirically baseless and ignorant of other substantial influences. Criticizing confidence is not necessarily an encouragement of confidence in the opposite conclusion. I donno, though, maybe it was. I can't read minds.

You say, "I don't really know who he is." This video is a couple clips of him debating on television in past decades. It is one of the better introductions to the man available on YouTube, I think. I also liked this much longer, much more contemporary interview hosted by Harvard's Hoover Institute of which he is a senior fellow.