« On banning smoking | Main | Quantifying fear »

November 25, 2004



I say this purely out of intellectual curiosity: but could you post sometime on how you define social justice?

It's such an ambiguous term - one of those that people invest with their own meanings, forming a false consensus - that it turns me off straight away, even though on the tangibles I sometimes might agree.


After all, you're the one quoting vol.2 of Hayek's "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" a few posts down!


Sorry to drag up an old post, but I've come here via Tim Worstall's trackback and I've got a question. I think I get what you're saying about taxation, but aren't you leaving out the other side of the redistribution coin, i.e. how the money collected by the government is spent? People on various parts of the income range may end up handing over similar proportions of their incomes once all kinds of taxes are taken into account, but they don't receive similar proportions of government spending. Certainly under Labour government spending has been fairly tilted towards the poor, and a recent Institute of Fiscal Studies paper argued that without Labour's redistributive spending inequality of net incomes would have risen strongly since 1997 instead of remaining largely static.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad