Allowing wealth inequality to persist in a society is not inherently wrong. It may adversely affect individuals within a population, namely those who are not wealthy, but no one should criticize the success of others simply because they lack their own.
But, some, who are frustrated with American wealth inequality are doing just this, rallying to “occupy” American cities, and speaking, they say, for the 99 percent of Americans who are not wealthy.
Don’t get me wrong. A system of injustice that leads to wealth inequality should be attacked, dismantled and replaced with a fair alternative, but something tells me that some within the Occupy Wall Street movement would not be satisfied with its replacement.
In any free system there will be rich and poor. This is because — contrary to popular belief — humans were not created equal. As much as I would love to play professional basketball, I cannot. My ability as a basketball player — no matter how hard I work — is limited by certain features specific to me.
The ability to gain wealth is akin to playing basketball. Just like some people can’t play basketball, others can’t amass wealth.
But, if our society doesn’t criticize Kobe Bryant for being a great basketball player, why should it criticize the wealthiest Americans for their ability to gain wealth? Many in this country have jumbled up two very different ideas: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
There are probably some on Wall Street who are actually dissatisfied with corruption and injustice and are fighting for equality of opportunity — a chance to become wealthy. These people criticize large government bailouts, deregulation of the financial markets and unfair campaign finance laws.
Still, there are many who are frustrated with their inability to gain wealth and are fighting for equality of outcome — a guarantee that everyone has the same. These people criticize the wealthy for not “paying their fair share,” asking for debt forgiveness and higher taxes in order to subsidize their living expenses.
Sure, wealthy Americans have a moral obligation to support their poorest compatriots but that shouldn’t amount to wholesale redistribution of wealth. It is not the job of the wealthy to ensure the poor are provided with resources to live like the middle class. People come to the United States for opportunity, not economic equality.
Corruption in the financial sector may have led to the partial collapse of American equal opportunity, but this collapse should not be followed by a movement for equality of outcome. We should be sympathetic to protesters who are fighting for opportunity and not redistribution of wealth, financial regulation and not higher taxes.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with 1 percent of Americans controlling a large amount of wealth, as long as that 1 percent earns this wealth in accordance with democratically instituted laws. The latter part of that statement should be our only concern and in my opinion that’s best handled off the street and in a legislative body.
Zien Halwani is a senior biology and philosophy double major and editor in chief of the Daily 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
