I'd say it's too close to call, although if I absolutely had to decide, they create more inequalities (by a very slim margin). I'm fine with inequalities in wealth, as long as they're natural (i.e., they're not legislated), as inequalities in wealth are natural--some people are going to be successful, others are not. It's impossible to have absolute equality anyway, as some people are smarter, luckier, and/or more creative than others, so with government, they'll figure out how to work the system. Without government intervention, they'll figure out how to use the market to their advantage.
However, I'll say that the tax system is biased equally overall, if you count FICA (a consumption tax that doesn't favor any industry or people over any other is not only equality before the law, but I think it would also help everyone the most other than no taxation). The credit/banking/monetary system, of course, is biased to favor the wealthy (the only thing that would change that is hard money, no legal tender, and making embezzlement illegal/forcing 100% reservism). And up until recently, the handouts have been near exclusively egalitarian, although that's not the case anymore, with TARP, bank bailouts, and the MIC (yes, it's a handout, because they're ripping the tax payer off by making shitty equipment and for doing nothing that contrbutes to the common defence of the people).
Also, the standing military is too egalitarian. It's basically been nothing more than a tool for jobs for both poor and rich people, the latter who contract, the former who join the military because they just refuse to make a living via the private sector and because the military pays way too much.
As for morality/immorality, all government is immoral, so it clearly legislates immorality simply by being government. So, while it may be tough to call whether government legislates more inequality than they do equality, everyone should believe that government is bad because it's more or less not beneficial to the economy while it's totally immoral.
Your thoughts?
However, I'll say that the tax system is biased equally overall, if you count FICA (a consumption tax that doesn't favor any industry or people over any other is not only equality before the law, but I think it would also help everyone the most other than no taxation). The credit/banking/monetary system, of course, is biased to favor the wealthy (the only thing that would change that is hard money, no legal tender, and making embezzlement illegal/forcing 100% reservism). And up until recently, the handouts have been near exclusively egalitarian, although that's not the case anymore, with TARP, bank bailouts, and the MIC (yes, it's a handout, because they're ripping the tax payer off by making shitty equipment and for doing nothing that contrbutes to the common defence of the people).
Also, the standing military is too egalitarian. It's basically been nothing more than a tool for jobs for both poor and rich people, the latter who contract, the former who join the military because they just refuse to make a living via the private sector and because the military pays way too much.
As for morality/immorality, all government is immoral, so it clearly legislates immorality simply by being government. So, while it may be tough to call whether government legislates more inequality than they do equality, everyone should believe that government is bad because it's more or less not beneficial to the economy while it's totally immoral.
Your thoughts?
Facebook
Twitter