food, housing, raiment are key basic needs. from there it gets more and more complex, going from a simple town/village to a multi city economy (with needs like farmers, weavers, tradesmen, merchants, craftsmen, a marketplace, shopkeepers, etc.)
society at its core might be simple, but there are layers and layers built on that simplicity.
we see an interesting distinction between these seemingly abstract needs (shopkeepers, weavers) for basic physical goods and the broader ideas of "justice and injustice" which are the only ideas the two orators don't immediately agree on. what does that say?
maybe the cost of society and complexity is the lack of justice?
"justice" brings up ideas of equality, so where does inequality come from
is inequality necessary?
some argue we need inequality because of the role of savings/investment & job creation that those at the top do and those at the bottom don't
but in the context of "rational actor theory" doesn't that mean we are relying on inherent altruism or care for those at the bottom, when in reality what most of the people at the top do is focus on preserving their status.
any benefit to those at the bottom (trickle-down effects) are then just a side-effect, not an intention.
the recommendations to pursue "fair/full taxation of capital income" and "design better compensation schemes" for executives, etc. --> another example of selfish systems? or systems built to assume selfishness?
what would a cooperation-based or "benevolent" solution for inequality look like?
-
-
Inequality and Economic Growth goes into a lot of evidence on income inequality and wealth inequality in the industrialized nations of the world --> shows that the minority (top 0.1-1%) benefit at the expense of the majority.
in context of "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," our society has a worse deal. we see millions, the majority, suffering in exchange for a minority having some mild comfort/enjoyment (but not even necessarily happiness).
in the story, the vast majority gets to enjoy bliss, true happiness, in exchange for one person suffering.
-
the only way we believe the narrator in "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is when we see the trade-off, which implies that yes it is.
"I do not know the rules and laws of their society, but I suspect that they were singularly few" (Le Guin)
in contrast to the rules + seemingly logical/natural components of a society Plato lays out, this is a very lax society. does that in and of itself imply dysfunction, or is the one "rule" regarding the child the only one they need?