FREEDOM OR EQUALITY?

Are Liberty and Equality Compatible? For and Against

Jan Narveson and James P. Sterba
Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp 265

Political philosophy may be defined as a rigorous analysis of the concept of the good
society. In this connection, philosophers sometimes distinguish between a good society
and the good society. A good society has at least some, and perhaps many, of the things
one would want any society to have; for example, a good health service, a good education
system, and good public transport. But the society in question might also be marred by
high levels of unemployment, and inadequate access to the arts. The good society, on the
other hand, is pre-eminently good; it has everything, or almost everything, one would
wish a society to have. It is the good society in this latter sense which is the subject
matter of political philosophy.

The philosophical tradition has given four broad answers to the question about the good
society. They are as follows: [i] the good society is democratic; [ii] the good society is
free; [iii] the good society is a society of equals; and [iv] the good society is just.

Those who hold that the good society is a free society are called libertarians, while those
who hold that the good society is a society of equals are known as egalitarians.
Libertarians further hold that liberty and equality are incompatible, and that liberty
should take precedence over equality. Egalitarians agree that liberty and equality are
incompatible, but then take the reverse position that equality should be given precedence
over freedom. Yet a third faction, known as liberal egalitarians, hold that freedom and
equality are somehow reconcilable; that it is possible to pay homage to both ideals
without sacrificing either. So far as the two distinguished authors of this book are
concerned, Jan Narveson is a libertarian, while James Sterba is a liberal egalitarian.
Sterba’s position is the more intriguing, and less obvious, of the two: he holds, somewhat
paradoxically, that the supposed antipathy between freedom and equality is a mirage; that
what is really involved is a clash of two conflicting freedoms, and that one of these
freedoms trumps the other. [ I shall return to the details of his argument later. ]

Equality may be defined in political terms ( as an equivalence of political power, e.g. one
person, one vote ), in legal terms (where everyone, or as necessary, every adult, is a legal
subject and, as such has the right to own property, to a fair trial, to get married, to bodily
integrity, etc. ), and in economic terms. Economic equality may be defined as [i] when
everyone has the same, or roughly the same, income; [ii] when there is no division into
rich and poor; [iii] when there is no dramatic difference in a country’s income
distribution on the 20% measure; [iv] when a country has a low, or even zero, Gini
coefficient.

1
Wilkinson and Pickett explain the Gini coefficient as follows: “It measures income
inequality across the whole society rather than comparing the extremes. If all income
went to one person ( maximum inequality ) and everyone else got nothing, the Gini
coefficient would be equal to 1. If income was shared equally and everyone got exactly
the same ( perfect equality ), the Gini would equal 0. The lower its value, the more equal
a society is. The most common values tend to be between 0.3 and 0.5.”1

Wilkinson and Pickett themselves have a preference for the 20% measure [ except when
it comes to the USA ]: “We use the ratio of the income received by the top to the bottom
20% whenever we are comparing inequality in different countries: it is one of the
measures provided ready-made by the United Nations. When comparing inequality in the
US states, we use the Gini coefficient: it is the most common measure, it is favoured by
economists and it is available from the US Census Bureau.”2

As the egalitarian John Baker sees it, a society of equals would look something like this:
Imagine a country with no poverty. No one sleeps under bridges; no one looks through garbage for
food. On the contrary: everyone has what you or I would call a decent home and a decent standard
of living. There’s no division into rich and poor, and anyone in a position of authority is
democratically elected. Since people’s work is meaningful and satisfying, they aren’t compelled to
do jobs they hate. Neither is anyone snubbed or patronized for belonging to the wrong class, or
forced to bow and scrape. Women and men treat each other as equals; skin colour is irrelevant to
your prospects in life; and you don’t have to suffer for being Irish or Jewish or disabled or gay.3

Cyril Connolly, the literary critic, novelist, founder and editor of Horizon, offered a more
measured vision of an equal society when he set out a ten-point plan which he urged the
post-war Labour government in Britain to implement in order to round off its egalitarian
policies.He proposed, reports Humphrey Carpenter, “the abolition of the death penalty;
the establishment of model prisons; the elimination of slums; the free supply of light and
heat; vocational training for all; the abolition of censorship and passports; the repealing
of laws against homosexuality, divorce, bigamy and abortion; a limit on the acquisition of
property; encouragement of the arts; and no discrimination against colour, race, class or
creed.”4

1
R. Wilkinson and K. Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always
Do Better, pp.17,18.
2
Ibid., p.18.
3
J. Baker, Arguing for Equality, p.3.
4
H. Carpenter, The Brideshead Generation: Evelyn Waugh and his Friends, p.384.

2
Some comments on these images of an equal society

Many of the items on Baker’s and Connolly’s wish lists are achievable because they
have, in fact, been achieved. The death penalty has been abolished in virtually all
Western democracies. There are even a number of model prisons, and prison regimes,
such as Ringe prison in Denmark, which has existed since the 1972. Censorship is either
non-existent or has been replaced by certification. Repressive laws against divorce,
homosexuality and abortion have likewise been almost universally repealed. The 19th
and early-20th century slums are long gone. Equality legislation in the Western
democracies forbids discrimination on grounds of gender, nationality, religion, and race
[ albeit with opt-out clauses in some cases ], whilel legislation recognising same-sex
parterships and permitting same-sex surrogacy have also been enacted, or are in the
process of being enacted. There is substantial state support for the arts in Western
Europe, with direct government investment in the arts per head of population highest in
Finland and Germany [ $91 and $85 respectively ].

The problem, then, for the egalitarian is that there is much on the egalitarian agenda, or
wish list, which the libertarian can easily concede, or agree with, with having to sacrifice
his libertarian principles. All of the above developments enhance civil liberties and
access to various social benefits. The sticking point, of course, is property, which
Connolly [ and by implication Baker ] wants curtailed. Marx and Engels distinguished
between personal and private property: the former consists of personal possessions, and
no one was to be deprived of their personal possessions; the latter consists of a surplus
wherewith to command the labour of others, and no one, as they saw it, should be left
with such a surplus. Connolly did not explain what he meant by ‘property;’ neither did
he call for the complete abolition of property, rather, for a limit to its acquisition. If we
think of property as income, which is also convertible into assets, and vice versa, then
there are fundamentally two mechanisms available to today’s democratically elected
governments for limiting and redistributing it: either by regulating gross income [Japan ],
or by taxing it severely [ the Scandinavian social democracies ]. The question then
remains: does either of these mechanisms give us a type of society which even
approximates to a society of equals?

3
Freedom is variously defined as [i] the opportunity for action ( I. Berlin ); [ii] the absence
of obstacles ( Berlin ); [iii] the absence of interference ( G.A. Cohen ); [iv] the presence
of alternatives ( L. Crocker ); [v] being unimpeded in acton ( J. Narveson ). When
talking about a free society, however, the focus switches to economic freedom,
particularly in the context of living in a liberal democracy, where a wide range of civil
liberties have long been available and can now be taken for granted. Economic freedom
is defined, implicitly, as the opportunity - available to all alike - to earn as much money,
and accumulate as much wealth, as one can, regardless of the consequences for others,
and with little or no regulation by government. In practice, a society premissed on this
idea of freedom produces deep divisions between rich and poor, between those who are
income and asset rich and those who are not. High net worth individuals ( as they are
called ), and their offspring, live longer, have a higher standard of education, and a far
higher standard of living. They live in a different part of town, their children go to
exclusive private schools, they marry others from the same social background, live in
houses as big and with the same specs as boutique hotels, have posher accents,
monogrammed shirts, and possess an American Express Centurion Card [ called “the
Black Card” - costing an annual fee of eighteen hundred pounds sterling, and by
invitation only ]. As one City banker succinctly put it, “We really do belong to different
worlds.”

I shall now supply some authenticated illustrations of this same free society, drawn from
biographical and social historical sources:

[i] The noise and pollution, the danger from the machines, and the physical disfigurement from long
hours of repetitive manual work were all blamed for the high mortality plaguing the working
classes. A pioneering surgeon in Leeds, C. Turner Thackrah, was shocked to discover the death
of 450 people a year as a result of machine accidents alone. He branched out his research into a
more general inquiry into the human cost of manufacturing and exposed the scandal of mental and
physical decay, impaired health and the premature death prevalent amongst the industrial working
class. The combination of a terrible diet devoid of protein, damp and unhealthy housing conditions,
and the long hours and industrial poisoning of the factory was producing a ‘small, sickly, pallid, thin
...degenerate race - human beings stunted, enfeebled, and depraved.’ He concluded that the
manufacturing industries in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Leeds were in fact mass
killers.5

[ii] He was yearning for his lost paradise. Spiritually he was still at Oxford. Its lure, the knowledge
that the city of dreams was ‘still full of friends’, made him quit art school. Invited to an Oxford
party by John Sutro, he accepted gratefully, eager to be reminded of what he was missing. His
unexpectd attendance was greeted warmly. All the old Hypocrites were there: Harold Acton,
Hugh Lygon, Robert Byron, even his first lover Richard Pares. It was a luncheon party that
seemed to stretch on for ever, as in the old days. They ate hot lobster, partridges and plum
pudding, drank sherry, mulled claret and ‘a strange rum-like liqueur’. Hugh, as usual, was
drinking too much. Evelyn left in time for a tea party and then a beer at the New Reform Club
with Lord Elmley and Terence Greenidge. A message then came from Hugh, by this time installed
in the bar of the Dramatic Society, proposing a trip to Banbury. But instead they reconveyned in the
old Hypocrites’ rooms, where they drank whisky and watched The Scarlet Woman. Evelyn’s
recollection of the rest of the evening was hazy: all he could remember was that he got hold of a
5
T. Hunt, Building Jerusalem: The Rise ad Fall of the Victorian City, pp.20,21.

4
 sword and escaped from Balliol via a window after the college had been locked for the night.6

[iii] Madresfield is a red-brick, moated manor house with yellow stone facings around the doors
and windows. On sunny days one could see the golden carp and the blue flash of a kingfisher
in the moat, which is twenty feet wide. ( Charles Ryder compares Julia Flyte to a kingfisher. )
On autumn days such as those when Evelyn first saw the place, a mist would rise out of the moat.
The surrounding parkland was once royal hunting country. The house is set in 4,000 acres and has
136 rooms, many of them immense, some tiny....

For Evelyn, it was like entering an enchanted world. A door leading from the hall opened into the
library, one from the library led up to the chapel, another to the long gallery and a side door to the
minstrels’ gallery above the old Tudor dining room. Room upon room was filled with treasures,
old masters, fine porcelain, antiques, objets d’art. In Brideshead, with all the careless ease of the
aristocrat, Sebastian says to Charles, who is fascinated by the house and its treasures, that there are
a ‘few pretty things I’d like to show you one day.’...

Evelyn was captivated by the Beauchamp Belles. Seven years older than Maimie and nine years
older than Coote, he became like an older brother. The girls had been forced to grow up fast in the
wake of their mother’s departure and their father’s disgrace. On the surface they seemed to have
everything: beauty, grace, elegance and the ease of the aristocrat. They had their own private
incomes and long gone were the days when they were dressed in threadbare clothes. They ordered
their dresses from Norman Hartnell, designer to Queen Mary, rode around in the chauffeured
Packard ( or, in Maimie’s case, drove it herself ), dined lavishly and moved freely between their
London home and their ancestral pile... To outsiders...they lived a charmed life. When Elmley’s
wife first met the sisters she was amazed by the sense of privilege and largesse. She noticed,
somewhat bitterly, that they were ‘financed by their father in a big way’. Each had her own bank
account and an open travel account at American Express. They could spend more or less what
money they liked. Many people were surprised that Mad was kept open for them, their friends and
their parties. The expected state of affairs in the circumstances would have been for white sheets to
be thrown over the furniture and the big house closed up until the parental difficulties had been
resolved.7

[iv] Sharp inequalities can be clearly mapped, even short distances apart, according to Dr Tim Lobstein,
director of the childhood research programme at the International Association for the Study of
Obesity. Travel the eight stops on the Jubilee line tube from Central London’s Westminster to
Canning Town and you find a decrease in life expectancy of nearly one year for each station going
east. A child born in one deprived Glasgow suburb can expect a life 28 years shorter than another
living only 13 km away in a more affluent area, a three-year investigation for the World Health
Organisation found in August...
Right across the country, those on low incomes suffer higher incidence of a whole range of
illnesses relating to poor diet. Lobstein catalogues them: higher rates of anaemia caused by lack
of iron, especially in pregnancy. Mothers from low-income groups are also more likely to have
children of low birthweight, who, in turn, are likely to suffer poor health and educational prospects
as a result. Working-class families have more dental disease and more childhood eczema and
asthma. They are more likely to suffer from obesity, both as children and as adults. They have
higher rates of raised blood pressure, thanks to excess salt in their processed diets. They are more
likely to suffer diabetes, heart disease, vascular disease and strokes. They suffer more cancers of
the lung, stomach and oesophagus. They have more cataracts caused by poor nutrition than those
in other classes. And the protective role of good diet is missing. A survey of men and women living
on benefits found that a third ate no fruit at all during the week their diets were recorded.8

6
P. Byrne, Mad World: Evelyn Waugh and the secrets of Brideshead, p.71.
7
Ibid., pp.155, 162, 163.
8
F. Lawrence, “Britain on a plate,” The Guardian, 1.10. 2008.

5
[v] Early May, and the sixty-third Cannes Film Festival is in full swing. Giorgio Armani has
anchored his brand-new boat, Main, just off the Croissette, in full view of the Palais des Festivals,
where films are premiered and stars walk the red carpet. Tonight, he is throwing a cocktail party on
board for Naomi Watts, the star of political thriller Fair Game, and for whom he has designed the
wardrobe...

Two hours before the party, a tender takes me out to meet the 76-year-old designer. As we approach
Main, a beautiful, dark green, Italian-made, 210ft super-yacht, which glistens like a wet seal basking in
the late afternoon sun, I spot eight men, all ruggedly good-looking and dressed in sweatpants and
matching fitted zip-up jerseys in the same colour as the boat, arranged like commandos on the deck.
This is the Armani crew. One of them leads me through a double-height glass atrium, past beige sofas
and black lacquered surfaces, and upstairs where, from behind a smoked-glass door, emerges a fit,
tanned, attractive man with neon-white hair...

Armani’s influence can be seen from Shanghai to Seattle. He has stood his own against the other
giant brands and, rather than be obscured by them, he remains, all these years later, one of the most
famous names in fashion. He is still the sole shareholder of a business whose value is now estimated
at $7 billion, and his own personal wealth, according to Forbes, at $5.3 billion. There is no hidden
silent partner, no unrecognized underling who does the designing - he is the architect, designer and the
lifeline of the business. With his Armani Cafe restaurants, he was one of the first designers to give his
customers the opportunity to eat where they shopped ( in the same style ), and he has joined forces with
Robert de Niro ( one of the founders of the Nobu chain of restaurants ) to open a Nobu in Milan.9

[vi] There is a new name for those falling down the black hole of joblessness that has opened up in
America’s economy. They are called the 99ers.

It is a moniker that no one wants. It refers to the 99 weeks of benefits that the jobless can
qualify for in America. The government cash helps those laid off keep a tenuous grip on a normal
life. It keeps a roof over their heads, pays a phone bill, puts food on a table and petrol in a car. But
once the 99 weeks are up the payments stop - as is happening now for millions of people.

For many, that moment, which America’s politicians have refused to extend, represents the
momentof destitution; a sort of modern American version of the old Victorian trip to the workhouse.
There are now more than a million 99ers and the number gets bigger each week...
If the 99ers are coming to symbolize a human segment of society that America is slowly
abandoning to its fate, then Camden is the geographic expression of that marginalisation. Large
stretches of the once bustling river port city seem to epitomise urban blight. Vacant lots and burnt-
out abandoned houses line many of its streets. Its population of 79,000 souls have the lowest median
income of any city in the US at just $24,000. In terms of crime rates it was the nation’s second most
dangerous city last year. Some estimates reckon that about a third of Camden’s houses are empty. A
third of its people are in poverty and a fifth are unemployed.

It is a deeply grim picture and it is getting worse. Camden’s city government is facing the prospect
of massive cuts as its cash-strapped resources have run out and it has built up huge debts. Services
have already been cut and only a last-minute rescue last week saved Camden’s three public libraries
from being closed....

Camden is far from unique in slashing its services. In Colorado Springs more than a third of

9
P. Ferrari, “Armani deconstructed,” Vogue, September 2010, pp.296, 299.

6
 street lights have been switched off to cut the municipal electricity bill. The city has sold off its
police helicopters.

In Hawaii schoolchildren - rather than city workers - were told to stay at home for 17 Fridays to
save costs. In a suburb of Atlanta local bus routes were closed, at a stroke wiping out public
transport for thousands of people who relied on it to get to precious jobs. The pattern has been
repeated all over the country from the biggest metropolis to the smallest hamlet. Some local
authorities in the US are even digging up tarmac roads and returning them to gravel as they can no
longer afford their upkeep... It is like a society in retreat, walling itself off from the economically
injured and the jobless; trying to preserve a middle-class existence for some rather than hope to
open it to all.10

[vii] If the world of haute couture is an exclusive one - supposedly there are only around 200
serious clients in the world - then the world of haute joaillerie, or high jewellery, makes it
look positively mass-market. The tiny tribe of shoppers who can afford and choose to spend
way, way upwards of a quarter of a million pounds on a pair of earrings or a necklace, that
miniscule section of the population who think of pretty much anything under the #25,000
mark as ‘starter’, they are themselves rare and precious jewels as far as the industry is
concerned. But how does the highly guarded process of high-jewellery salesmanship work?
[...] Fallon takes a couple of black velvet rolls from his trusty holdall and the three of us
find ourselves clasping our hands in expectation. How to describe the first piece? A snake?
A waterfall? Somehing fluid anyway, for that is what this extraordinary ‘scarf’ of diamonds,
all 800 of them, totalling over 300 carats, looks like, winking and glittering in the watery,
morning sun. ‘It feels like...’ Schagrin stops to consider the piece,which took seven months
to craft and costs somewhere in the region of, well, Klein won’t say, but she doesn’t say no
when I mention a figure of $3 million. ‘Let’s see, diamond silk? But just feel the weight of
it...’

The pair of them start playing dress-up, Klein threading the ‘scarf’ through the belt loops of
her skirt and then tying it Gibson Girl-style under her hair before handing it to Schagrin.
‘Hmm,’ says Schagrin, expertly knotting it round her neck. ‘Are you sure if I wear this to the
show, which I think I probably will, that it won’t look part of the couture outfit?’ And then,
with a girlish giggle, ‘Maybe I should wear it this way for one half of the show and round my
waist for the other...I swear, last time at the couture I must have changed ten times in one day
and I never took the elevator from my room to the lobby at the George V, I always took the
grand staircase, because isn’t that part of the fun of the couture, making an entrance?’11

Coments on these images of a free society

10
P. Harris, “Jobless millions signal death of the American dream for many,” The Observer, 15.8.2010.
11
C. D’Souza, “Shopalong Kassidy,” Vanity Fair Plus Jewellery, August 2010, pp.69, 71.

7
A free society is one in which everyone is free to earn and accumulate as much as they
can, without government interference, regardless of the consequences for others and
where, as a consequence, some end up living sumptuous lives while others end up living
lives which are depleted and miserable. Reactions to my sample selection of images of
such a society vary dramatically. Some, especially those on the Left, react with moral
outrage. Others, especially those on the Right, see no injustice in such a society, because
everyone is free to earn and accumulate as much as they can; because inevitably some
will do better than others in the market zero sum games, and because those who do badly
still do better than than they would fare in any other type of society [ Narveson and others
influenced by Rawls’ difference principle ].

Those on the Left [ where my own sympathies lie ] are motivated by the following
thoughts:

[i] There is no justice in such a society: a society which is marked by conspicuous,

untrammelled affluence on the one hand, and widespread misery and deprivation on the
other [ or even any misery and deprivation ] is unjust and decadent.

[ii] In the free society, some have far more freedom than others. Basically, some have far
more money [ and/or credit ] than others and, as a consequence, have far more
opportunities for action. Money buys you things - broadly, possessions and experiences -
which lack of money forces you to forfeit or forgo. How can a libertarian support a type
of society that denies so much freedom to so many?

[iii] Contrary to what is claimed by Rawls and Berlin, poverty carries with it a lack of
freedom, not just a lack of the means to exercise freedom [ as argued by G.A. Cohen in a
paper delivered at UCD in March 2000 ].

[iv] In the free society, significant numbers of citizens suffer ill-health needlessly, die
prematurely, drop out of the education system long before their peers, suffer consistent
and not just relative poverty, and are more likely than their counterparts in more
egalitarian societies to end up in prison. These harms are less common in more
egalitarian societies. Therefore these harms are avoidable. Avoidable harm should be
avoided [ Normative Claim ]. These harms can be avoided by having a more equal, and
less free, society. Therefore, a more equal, and less free, society is desirable [ Normative
Conclusion ].

Freedom or Equality? The Narveson- Sterba Debate

8
The debate between Narveson and Sterba may now be summarised as follows:

[i] In a free society, everyone is free[ has the opportunity ] to earn as much money, and
accumulate as much wealth, as they are able to, regardless of the consequences for others.

[ii] The historical outcome of this political practice has been a division into rich and poor,
into those who are income and asset rich, and those who are not.

[iii] There is no injustice here, since in a free society everyone, rich and poor alike, has
the opportunity to earn and accumulate as much as they can.

[iv] So, “the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty so that the basic needs of
the poor may be met”12 [ Sterba’s representation of libertarianism, the theory he rejects].

[v] But, a failure to restrict the freedom of the rich to earn and accumulate as much as
they can amounts to restricting the freedom of the poor “not to be interfered with in
taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic
needs.”13 [ Sterba ]

[vi] In that case, “we can either say that the rich should have the liberty not to be
interfered with in using their surplus resources for luxury purposes, or we can say
that the poor should have the liberty not to be interfered with in taking from the rich what
they require to meet their basic needs. If we choose one liberty, we must reject the
other.”14 [ Sterba ]

[vii] Precedence should be given to the liberty of the poor to take from the rich what they
require to meet their basic needs. [ Sterba ] To require of the poor that they relinquish this
power “In the extreme case... involves [ unreasonably ] requiring the poor to sit back and
starve to death... By contrast, it is not unreasonable to require the rich in this context to
sacrifice the liberty to meet some of their luxury needs so that the poor can have the
liberty to meet their basic needs.”15

[viii] Narveson, the libertarian, disagrees vehemently: “People are entitled to their lives
and thus to their liberty to do whatever they can do without aggression against others.
But how is it an aggression on the part of the rich man if he decides not to part with some
of his goods to help out the poor man? What the rich man does to the poor man in that
case - namely, nothing - does not make the poor man worse off; it merely leaves him as
badly off as he already is - which is by hypothesis pretty badly off. And of course,
relentless nature makes the poor man still worse off as the days go by during which he
gets no sustenance. But that is not the rich man’s doing - it is nature’s. On the other
hand, if the poor man robs the rich man, then of course he does intervene into the rich
man’s life, and leaves him worse off than he would have been had the poor man not done
this. That there is, in Sterba’s phrase, a ‘conflict of liberties’ is, as we saw before, beside
12
Are Liberty and Equality Compatible? p.14.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., p.15.
15
Ibid., pp.17,18.

9
the point. What is in point is whether the interpersonal situation between the two is
infected with aggression. And it appears that it is. Nonhelp does not aggress; robbery
does.”16

It seems to me that this is a debate that Sterba cannot win. This is because he insists on
meeting the libertarian on his own ground. All the libertarian has to do is advance any
one, or combination of, the following propositions, and the libertarian egalitarian is left
floundering:

[a] In a free society, everyone has the right to earn and accumulate as much as possible.
So, there is no inherent injustice in the system.

[b] Since everyone has this right, or opportunity, taking forcibly from those who have
earned and accumulated most is theft [ Narveson, an ironic twist on the Marxist axiom
that property is theft ].

[c] If the free society is a democratic one, then there are institutionally legimated ways of
restricting the incomes and assets of the rich and the super-rich. The main democratic
instrument for doing so is taxation, which enables democratically elected governments to
redstribute income and wealth among their populations. Taxation is not theft, because it
is the policy initiative of governments who have been elected in free and fair political
contests. By the same token, if governments tax lightly, then that is the free and fair
outcome of the democratic process, and must be accepted.

The true egalitarian can, and needs, to approach the matter in any one, or amalgam, of the
following ways:

[i] Equality is pre-eminently desirable in itself, since it demands that all human beings be
treated with the same degree of consideration and respect. [ Dworkin, Cohen ]

[ii] In a free society, everyone does not have an equal right, or opportunity, to earn and
accumulate as much as they can. The odds on doing so are heavily stacked against the
have-nots, particularly in such crucial areas as education, disposable income, health, life
expectancy, cultural capital and occupational networking.

[iii] Equality trumps freedom, but it is possible to pay homage to equality while leaving
many, a great many, substantive freedoms intact.

[iv] Redistributing income and wealth among the dual population that has emerged
historically from the industrial revolution is desirable, because it ensures that avoidable

16
Ibid., p.228.

10
harms are avoided. In fact, extensive research has shown that societies with lower levels
of income inequality are better for everyone, not just the have nots.17

Narveson and Sterba are two distinguished, senior political philosophers. The analytical
political philosophy which they favour and practise is highly abstract and technical,
almost - though not entirely - devoid of empirical content. The net effect of this approach
to political philosophy is that they, and other professional philosophers, will not get to
participate in the great political debates about public policy. So we are left with a lose-
lose situation: the profession and the discipline suffer, while public debate is weaker than
it would otherwise be. It is time for professional philosophers to become public
intellectuals once again.

JOSEPH MAHON
National University of Ireland, Galway

17
See R. Wilkinson and K. Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always
Do Better. Allen Lane, 2009.

11