Skip to main content

Inequality is the problem, not 'deprivation'

I recommend Matt Sellwood's latest post, http://anglobuddhistcombine.blogspot.com/2009/09/equality-is-must.html
Also do read Wilkinson's previous book, 'The impact of inequality'.
I am at present writing, using Wilkinson's work to challenge liberal political philosophy, especially John Rawls's disastrous 'difference principle', which provides a 'justification' for inequality.
My main focus this academic year is going to be this work. I am arguing that inequality in itself, not alleged 'deprivation' considered in absolute terms, is the fundamental social problem of modern society.

Comments

sunflowers said…
I do agree largely, Rupert, but I take it you are talking about "modern society" in Britain, right, since there are several "modern societies"? I'm not just trying to be pedantic, and I agree that relative poverty is vastly under-emphasised, but I'm urging qualification (and for not going to the opposite extreme): there is surely also some significance in absolute poverty/ "deprivation" at some level, e.g. if you have no access to clean water, which many people still do not.

(The further question then is; at what point do absolute levels of wealth become insignificant in terms of contribution to our well-being? And btw I'm not suggesting that relative poverty/inequality does not also play a role at the same time)
10 September 2009 at 17:28
Rupert said…
Yes indeed, Ruth; absolutely. I am talking here primarily (though by NO means exclusively) about 'developed' societies.
Wilkinson's books have lots of detailed info on the questions you are asking here, btw.
11 September 2009 at 13:20
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more