COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	THE LIMITS OF EQUALITY
C00006 ENDMK
C⊗;
THE LIMITS OF EQUALITY

	This article discusses how much equality among people society can
and should strive for.  The issue is a live one in America today,
because more and more people believe that formal equality of opportunity
will not guarantee equality of result.  Each of the following views has
its supporters:

	1. Equality of opportunity is as far as society should go.  Inequalities
of result are inevitable and should be accepted.

	2. If there were true equality of opportunity, then substantial
equality of result would necessarily follow.  Any inequality of result is
evidence of inequality of opportunity and reason for compensatory
measures.

	3. If equality of opportunity is insuffiecient to assure equality of
result, then society should od what more is required to assure equality
of result.  A major advocate of this view is John Rawls, "Theory of Justice"
which allows inequalities that benefit the worst off members of society.

SOME REMARKS

	1. When comparisons of equality are made, a lot depends on what 
groups are averaged over.  For example, Rawls never mentions the sick
as a group, although this group is probably the worst off.  A group or
its advocates can make its case by judicious "gerrymandering" of the
group boundaries.

	2. Unless the East German view that the Berlin Wall is a symbol
of democracy is accepted, then anyone who thinks that society does not
reward him in accordance with his talents should be able to emigrate to
a society he thinks will treat him better.  A society that attracts
talent by paying it well may be able to outproduce a more equalitarian
society to the extent that even the untalented are attracted even though
they have a low relative position in the unequalitarian society.  That 
this is a real possibility is shown by the fact that all communist ruled
societies have emigration control.

	3. Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" is based on the idea of
a social contract that participants in society would sign before they
knew whether they would be born wealthy or poor and before they knew
how much talent they would have.  He arrives at his doctrine of making
the least well off in society as well of as possible by a hocus-pocus
which argues that one would choose a maximin rather than a Bayesian
strategy.  In my opinion, this doctrine of anticipating the worst does
not correspond to actual human preferences.