what does that mean? rights? conditions?
whether or not it is a part of equality, obviously it would be great if everyone had their basic needs met with a relatively high degree of security. it certainly does seem egregiously unfair that billions of people do not, while a small fraction of people have so much more than anyone needs.
but if i could wave a magic wand that redistributed all the wealth equally, or more equitibly, what would result?
one possibility is that eventually the same disparities, or new and equally unfair ones, would return - especially if by wealth i mean money. what really would have to be distributed more equally is not merely money but true sources of wealth. what are those? what is wealth?
seemingly conflicting ideas of wealth come to mind: material welfare, psychological welfare, self-actualization, power. the first three i think can be collapsed into one, and i could also make an argument for integrating power into the same conception. but i think there is still an ambiguity in our thinking about equality. is equality about power over self, or power over others?
i know that with any seeming dichotomy, the answer is probably both, or perhaps a superposition. perhaps the dichotomy in this question reflects a dichotomous assumption of the non-identity of self and other.
what do i mean by power? and why am i discussing it in the context of equality? that seems obvious: equality is not about anything but power. equality of material condition is nothing without equality of freedom. and equality of freedom is nothing without equality of material condition. equality of power is the true criterion. what is that, and how is it possible, if it is?
