One’s view of the distribution of political power in this
Country, at the local or national level, may depend upon how closely aligned he
or she considers the political to the economical. From a practical standpoint, one’s political
power (autonomy and authority) decreases as the size of the political sphere
increases; whereas, one’s economic power (self-sufficiency) increases as the
size of the economic sphere increases.
If one holds that the economical and political are
interdependent, then it follows that a larger economic sphere requires a larger
political sphere. Under this view,
self-sufficiency is a necessary component of political autonomy and authority. By
this argument, the larger economic sphere increases each person’s
self-sufficiency and, thereby, each person’s power and control over his or her
personal affairs, which offsets the loss of power usually experienced by a
person’s participation in a larger political sphere.
Contrarily, if one holds that the economical and political
are independent with merely an incidental relationship (i.e. use of some
judicial system to enforce and protect contracts or punish market defectors),
then it is possible to argue that persons most benefit from a larger economic
sphere and smaller political sphere. Under this view, self-sufficiency is not a
necessary component of political autonomy and authority. Rather, the power and
control that flows from economic self-sufficiency is separate and distinct from
the power and control that flows from political autonomy and authority: the
former is a matter of societal privilege; the latter is a matter of societal
right.
The material difference between these two conceptions is
that the first assumes that money is equal to political power; the second
assumes that money is only incidental to political power. Yet, even those who subscribe to the second
view understand that self-sufficiency is tied, if only loosely, to one’s
autonomy: one who is economically well off can devote more time to exerting his
or her influence over the political sphere; whereas, one who is economically deficient must devote more time to labor or trade than to increasing or
exercising a degree of political influence. It follows, then, that each person
within a given political sphere must enjoy a minimal level of economic
self-sufficiency to exercise—in a meaningful way—
some level of political power.
I submit that our debate about economic inequality concerns
not whether each person should enjoy a minimal level of economic
self-sufficiency, but about how much that level should be. In other words, we are not concerned with
redistribution of wealth as such, but redistribution of wealth by how much.
