Let's say that we all agree that there exists some socially optimal level of inequality I*
Now, left libertarians say:
Right libertarians, on the other hand say, argue:
What if both statements are true?
what do plumb-line libertarians say?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I don't understand how there could ever be this agreement other than "we are always at l*" , the term "inequality" simply could not work in any other scietific or logical way and make sense. And even there, the word becomes rather pointless.
And who says there even is such a thing as an optimal level of inequality? What if anarchism creates conditions for inequality above the "social optimum" and government creates conditions for inequality below the "social optimum" to the exact same degree?
Political Atheists Blog
This whole inequality question is barking up the wrong tree.
For any given economic state of affairs, we want to a) acheive the maximum possible increase of wealth for everyone and b) minimize the violence inflicted on everyone. Right?
An uncoerced free market achieves both goals. Any forced redistribution of wealth, even if done with the best intentions of "minimizing inequality" yields the very opposite of both goals. Read Mises' Socialism.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer