Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:
Like Michael Smith, I don’t suffer from the “Progressive” itch for income equality (Letters , Aug. 3). Not only does achievement of such “equality” require the state to treat people unequally, obsession with income equality also reflects a Scrooge-like fetish for money.
Consider a man who spends long hours at the gym. He does so for the same reasons that another man spends long hours at work: to gain an advantage and a sense of achievement. Are gym-man’s broad shoulders, bulging biceps, and ripped torso appropriate objects of envy by couch-potato man? Is this envy a social problem demanding government action? Should gym-man be scorned as greedy for working extra-hard to improve his physique – extra-hard work that likely wins gym-man disproportionate access to attractive mates? Should government force gym-man to share his beautiful babes with couch-potato man? Should gym-man’s muscles, or natural good looks, be taxed?
If we recognize that envy of other persons’ physiques is a sentiment deserving only ridicule, why do so many “Progressives” excuse – or even positively approve of – envy of other persons’ monetary assets?
Donald J. Boudreaux
Actually, of course, a person’s going to the gym is less beneficial for others than is that person spending time earning income in the market. Working out and getting buff is closer to a zero-sum game than is profitably tranforming inputs into outputs for sale to consumers.