I cannot fathom how any serious person could harbor such a belief, that reward should be simply proportional to effort, though it does lead to the widely-held conclusion. No one wants to see someone who puts a lot of effort into planning a crime be rewarded. Nor should someone who expends much energy scratching their stomach expect to be paid handsomely. Wait, that's different they'll say, those are efforts toward ends which are not valuable. Well, who decides what ends are valuable? Is it not other people, who not only say they support the ends, but prove it by freely offering valuable remuneration to producers of goods and services? I share your mistrust of ideology, but suppose we could do with at least a governing principle. I favor the society in which people can get ahead by asking themselves "How can I get what I want by giving other people what they want?"If you have some vague general notion that equality is a good thing, and you believe that people ought to get approximately the same reward for an equivalent amount of effort, then a capitalist enterprise, in which a large number of people toil for a modest reward while the owner of the enterprise collects a far bigger reward, is morally indefensible.
Now, my friend, you are being rhetorically mischievous. (Not a bad trait, in my book...) Given the context of my statement it was at least implied that I was talking about productive effort in the sense that productive effort is generally understood. For clarity sake, however, let me rephrase. "Capitalism is indefensible as a means of achieving a morally equitable distribution of wealth." The problem, really, centers on the idea that morality and the distribution of wealth are equivalent. I don't believe they are; most Marxists do. I still believe capitalism poses a number of serious problems, of which long term instability is a much greater one than a lack of fairness. It has a saving grace, however -- so far, we have devised nothing better. You should be pleased! A call for a better alternative is a standard wasoxygen gambit -- and I have already employed it without being asked!
It was a pleasure wearing the "Rhetorical Mischief" medal, but I must now return it. You have performed that oldest trick in the book of rhetoric, switching labels. I complained to your former self that we ought not simply reward effort, because not all effort is toward valuable ends. Now you object that you were only speaking of "productive" effort. Very well, who decides what ends are productive? Is it not other people, who not only say they support the ends, but prove it, etc.? It is not a stretch to suppose that thieves, rapists, and stomach-scratchers seek to improve their "productivity." This restatement is also not obviously true, to me. Since "equitable" does not mean "equal" but something closer to "fair," which implies a moral judgment, can we just say we are aiming for a "fair distribution of wealth" without dulling the point too much? What is a fair distribution of wealth? One distribution is strictly equal shares for everyone. Capitalism won't get you there, probably some kind of authoritarianism is needed. But without capitalism probably very little wealth will be created anyway, so the authorities will simply have to ensure that everyone is equally poor, by taking away from the less poor and giving it to the more poor. Out of boredom or good nature, some people will do some work, and receive their one-seven-billionth portion of the proceeds. I imagine the authorities will expect to be a little less poor than the average in exchange for doing society this service. Another possible distribution is that people keep the stuff that they themselves create, unless they choose to give or trade it. No need for a belabored explanation here; is there something in it that is not fair, or "morally equitable," young emcadwaladr?"Capitalism is indefensible as a means of achieving a morally equitable distribution of wealth."
Actually, you are giving me too much credit by accusing me of equivocation here. Worse -- I will have to acknowledge actual incompetence. I discover I have (as you implied later) been using "equitable" incorrectly, believing it meant something like "equalish; tending toward equality." Since it doesn't mean that, my restatement was at best incorrect and at worst nonsense. Though seated at the moment, I stand corrected. Between your objection and galen's I am also forced to admit my original statement doesn't do the best job of conveying my intent. I was writing a memoir -- not a form that lends itself to philosophical rigor -- but it still seems an amendment is in order. You may still disagree, but at least we will better understand what we are disagreeing about. Here is my revision: "Well, quite obviously, from a certain perspective – it isn’t. If you have some vague general notion that equality is a good thing, and you believe that people ought to get an approximately the same reward for an equivalent amount of productive effort, then a capitalist enterprise, in which a large number of people toil for a modest reward while the owner of the enterprise collects a far bigger reward, is morally indefensible. Period. This really isn’t rocket science, and any young person that approaches the world with the set of moral precepts he or she was taught in elementary school will probably come to this conclusion with very little help. Morality is a slippery concept though." For the record, even in my original text I stated a conditional: "If you have some vague general notion that equality is a good thing, and you believe that people ought to get an approximately the same reward for an equivalent amount of productive effort..." Neither, you, galen, nor I appear to meet those conditions at present -- ergo we are not bound by this standard. Note also that I said: "...then a capitalist enterprise, in which a large number of people toil for a modest reward while the owner of the enterprise collects a far bigger reward, is morally indefensible." Do you have stomach-scratching capitalist enterprises where you live? I, myself, have never seen one... I agree with your last two paragraphs, except that, historically, the authorities have always expected to be a good deal less poor.