I don’t think social justice says everyone has a right to be smart, that’s folly. But it says everyone has a right to see a doctor if they’re sick no matter how dumb they are.

As for social justice only having meaning in communist countries???? Australia has never been a communist country. Neither have Britain, France, Sweden, the United States, South Korea etc etc. Notions of social justice and their political expressions have played out in all these countries and it hasn’t lead to communism.

For him merit was about the choices people made — about how hard they worked and the sacrifices they made.

So while a person might be entitled to the returns they make on their inborn human capital, Hayek wouldn’t have said they deserve them.

The difference between entitlement and desert is the difference between procedural justice and distributive justice.

Why set people up with false expectations and then make them feel as if the ‘system’ is stamping them as losers? We’re all playing with loaded dice.

My understanding is that sociologists (particularly British sociologists?) over-stress structural causes of economic inequality. If people are unemployed or low paid then the explanation is always going to have something to do with class, race, ethnicity, or gender. The message is — the game is rigged and unless it’s changed some groups can never win.

It seems as if it’s taboo to even ask whether differences in ability might play some part in explaining differences in outcomes. Individual life choices and cultural practices are also off limits (the system must adapt to these, not vice versa). Self-destructive behaviour can only be discussed as a response to structural disadvantage — as a symptom not a cause.

I agree that the big problem with this explanatory style is that tells people from disadvantaged groups that there is nothing they can do as individuals to improve their situation. It’s a problem because it isn’t true.

But on the other hand, there are people who argue that disadvantage is always due to individual choices or self-destructive cultural practices. And the message here is that there’s nothing employers, governments or taxpayers can do to address the problem. I don’t think this is true either.

I think the message from Hayek is that, while it might be possible to reduce “deliberate capriciousness” in markets it’s not possible to remove the randomness and volitility. If we want the benefits of markets then we have to accept the unmerited inequality they create.

And once we’ve come to terms with that, then we can think more clearly about what governments should and shouldn’t do.

5) This is exactly the situation that Hayek was trying to avoid hence he regarded being frank about the Noble Lie of Meritocracy as more important than covering up with Noble Lie 2 of Markets=Meritocracy. Get people used to the idea that randomness and volatility is simply a feature of real life.

What kinds of rules do you think need to be established?

Hayek actually has a long nuanced argument about merit starting on page 69 of ‘The Mirage’ that you seem to ignore. The problem for readers in commenting is knowing where you’re taking your argument – that long nuanced section on merit in Hayek may or may not be relevant for your purposes. So how about providing us with a quick roadmap?

most desirable order of society

that you quoted in part 1.

(ie,

one which which would choose if we knew that our initial position in it would be decided purely by chance

), etc.

Which tends to boil down to, in these people’s estimation, one with a seriously active intervention program for the lowest decile, a more ‘humane’ (but oddly less expansive) immigration program and slightly more or at least equally progressive taxation but otherwise very similar to the one we now have.

The fact is, of course, that we do not wish people to earn a maximum of merit but to achieve a maximum of usefulness at a minimum of pain and sacrifice and therefore of merit. Not only would it be impossible for us to reward all merit justly, but it would not even be desirable that people should aim chiefly at earning a maximum of merit. Any attempt to induce them to do this would necessarily result in people being rewarded differently for the same service (96).

But maybe you think merit is something else? Something that doesn’t involve effort?

Here’s the quote if anyone’s interested:

‘Social justice’ can be given a meaning only in a directed or ‘command’ economy (such as an army) in which the individuals are ordered what to do; and any particular conception of ‘social justice’ could be realized only in such a centrally directed system.

And yes, I think the calculation debate is over.

the only way to achieve ‘social justice’ would be through a completely planned economy (p 69).

There is a change in meaning from what Hayek wrote. He argues that the term ‘social justice’ is meaningless in a market economy. It can only be given meaning in a ‘directed’ or ‘command economy’. Consequently it ‘could’ only – not would – be realised in such an economy. Of course, Hayek had already explained that such economies would fail – as they eventually did.

1. They believe that different jobs should be paid at different rates, but the ratios they nominate are more tightly bundled than we observe in the actual labour market.
2. They believe that the gaps between rich and poor are too large though they have a very weak understanding as to where they are in the actual income distribution.
3.They think there are too many people on welfare, and generally oppose increasing rates of payment to able-bodied welfare recipients.
4. Only a minority believe that they do not have a chance of improving their own standard of living.

I include the last point because though it is not about current income distribution, I think there is a huge sociological difference between societies where inequalities are permanent and those where opportunities exist.