Study Questions #39
Schmidtz – Equal Respect and Equal Shares
1) What does Schmidtz think can be said in favor of equally splitting the apples in Ackerman’s
garden? In what contexts do these virtues manifest themselves?
2) How might equal shares show unequal respect, according to Schmidtz?
3) What is the difference between saying that “I deserve more than you” and “I deserve what I
have, and you deserve what you have” (where what I have is more than what you have)?
4) What is Elizabeth Anderson’s criticism of recent trends in academic egalitarianism?
5) What is Daniels’ critique of meritocracy? How does Schmidtz respond?
6) What kind of alienation does Schmidtz say is produced by redistribution?
7) What two virtues does Carol Rose ascribe to the rule of first possession?
8) What is the relationship between the rule of first possession and xenophobia?
9) What is a zero-sum game? Does Schmidtz think property appropriation is zero-sum?
10) In what way can looking at inequality between households be misleading?
11) What is the relationship between income and age, according to Schmidtz? What lesson does
this teach us about inequality?
12) What do Schmidtz’ data about income mobility suggest?
To Think About:
Individual wealth in a market economy is not ‘distributed’ by any central agency – so say Nozick, Hayek,
and Schmidtz. But the rules of a market economy are not unalterable laws of nature. We can change
property rights, tax law, and a number of other variables. And some of these changes will have
predictable distributive effects – channeling more money toward one group, less toward another. If we
choose to adopt (or maintain) rules that produce great amounts of inequality, how is this compatible
with respect for the poor?
© Routledge 2014