Distribution and redistribution
Inspiration:
And then... There are two models of how we perceive the society should be structured. We are either equals, or we are not :) Please forgive oversimplification, but I'm just looking at a specific angle to get some... further ideas. So, if we are not equals, if for some reasons kings have been given some godly powers or justification why exactly they are on the top... If we are equals, there is no top. If we are not, all kinds of hierarchies are possible. Stratification of society into casts, feudal orders, etc. If there we are not equals, there's not much we can talk about. It's all arbitrary and might makes right really - on top there is the person able to gather and use most power. That's how tops are defined.
If, however, we look at our species and understand that in fact there is no divine difference, no one is more holy or blessed as the other person - what does it mean? Surely, one is smarter, one is stronger, one is faster, but we are equals in the fact that we are all individual expressions of the universal mind. Oh, I mean we all have minds, and they can't be directly compared, therefore we are all equals ;) And we say we are. In eyes of the law for example, in theory. We are all free to participate in society (or not). And so on. If we are equals, then no one has any right to order us around (and we don't have such right either of course). That's should be clear.
Now... In theory we are equals when it comes to the law and theoretical stuff that matters, but is, let's say, slightly abstract.
When it comes to basic and material stuff, equality is nowhere to be found. Yes, in theory we all have a chance to "make it", common myth is that we can become millionaires if we work hard enough or are smart enough, etc. It is of course not that simple nor actually doable, but there is no law against becoming rich, just laws against becoming rich in certain ways.
However, what I'm curious about is how equality in theory is comparable to economic equality. We all (most of us) participate in economy. We collectively create wealth. However, distribution of this wealth is far from equal - and that's something taken from granted, obvious and not to be talked about much, because... communism. Scandinavian countries had traditionally high taxes, but those taxes paid for education and health services. USA had low taxes, but you have to pay for everything yourself. That seems to be the spectrum, either you are in control of all the money you earn, and everything is for sale, or you give most of what you earn to central distribution system and it gives you stuff "for free" - capitalism and socialism. Both types have their pluses and minuses, but capitalism in nature is more like feudal system where hierarchies are built based on numbers, not birth or any divine right. Isn't it so? Socialism means society with more equality. Problem, as always, is when enforced redistribution is steered by people. People are the weakest link, as they are prone to corruption, they are not always that smart, they make mistakes and bad choices. And the more there is to redistribute, the most costly mistakes are. Great Hungers with millions of victims were direct results of attempts to regulate redistribution manually by people who could barely count without using their fingers. Scandinavia is much better of course :) proving that such a system can work nicely, if only participants and managers are themselves honest and smart enough...
The question is, can we handle wealth creation any better than in those two systems? Can there be creation and distribution of wealth without money? Money being just... little boxes for transporting value/wealth and making it easier to count and compare?
Disclaimer: this post has no point to get to. I only tried to write down some thoughts in hope that there is some answer to the questions in the last paragraph. It feels like there are answers out there... We can do better. Surely we can.
It's not good practice to repeat post things so close together.