Is it fair that some people have more money than they can possibly spend while others are struggling to pay for essentials? It depends on what you mean by “fair”.

There’s never been a better time to be a billionaire. An Oxfam report released last week reveals that billionaires around the world have added a tidy $3.2 trillion to their wealth in 2024 alone. To put that in context: on average, each billionaire expanded their wallet by 3.2 million bucks every day over the last 12 months. That’s a tidy $400,000 an hour, or over 6,000 times the median hourly rate. 

If you believe that innovation and hard work ought to be well rewarded, you might not be perturbed by these numbers. Except that the Oxfam report found that around 60 percent of the wealth captured by billionaires didn’t come from their labour, but was handed to them via an inheritance, or was secured through cronyism, corruption or their ability to exert monopoly power. So, there’s also never been a better time to have ultra-rich parents, or to have enough power to tilt the playing field in your favour. 

Meanwhile, millions of hard-working people are struggling with cost-of-living pressures while their wages have stagnated. It’s probably no surprise that the phrase “every billionaire is a policy failure” – coined in another Oxfam report from 2023 – is having another surge in popularity. 

But is the existence of billionaires itself a bad thing? Or is the existence of poverty the real problem? Should we change the way our economy works to make it impossible for someone to accrue that much money and power? Should we spread some of that wealth around to people who didn’t happen to be born with wealth and privilege? 

These are not new questions. Ever since human societies started to accumulate wealth, inequality has been a hot topic for philosophers. But questions about inequality are fundamentally questions about fairness. The problem is that there are different ideas about what is fair. 

Just deserts

One way to think about fairness is in terms of what someone deserves. Intuitively, if someone is talented, works hard and produces things that other people want, then they ought to be rewarded for doing so. A society that operates this way is often called a “meritocracy”.  

This approach is often used to justify the vast wealth accrued by billionaires; presumably they’ve earnt their wealth because they’ve worked harder and smarter than most, and produced things that society wants or needs. And, on the flip side, many people assume that someone who’s living in poverty must be lazy or they made some dumb decisions, so they deserve their lot too. 

But things aren’t so simple. Is it talent that we’re rewarding? Or is it effort? Or one’s contribution to society? Because what someone deserve differs depending on which we focus on. 

If we focus on talent, then it’s clear that the world isn’t a level playing field. Some people are genetically endowed with higher intelligence, imagination or tenacity, or they’re born into a family that can afford a top-class education, all of which can give that person a huge boost to their talent. And, if they haven’t earnt any of those advantages, we might be reluctant to say they’ve earnt the disproportionate benefits that accrue because of them. 

If we focus on effort instead, then the harder someone works, the more they deserve in return for their labour. Setting aside the question of whether tenacity is to some degree genetic, by this logic, someone who works long hours doing two jobs – as do many people to make ends meet – ought to be paid more than someone who earns a passive income from huge investments or a trust fund, let alone the significant proportion who were just handed their fortune.  

Perhaps we should focus on contribution instead. Not all work is created equal. Some work only benefits the worker rather than society as a whole, and some is outright destructive or harmful. That brings us to the idea that people ought to be rewarded for what they offer society as a whole. No doubt, many billionaires own or head companies that produce things that people want. But is their personal contribution to society proportionate to the huge salaries they demand or the value of their share portfolio? Is a CEO really contributing more than hundreds of workers who actually produce the products and services? Many people would say no. 

There are also many people performing essential jobs, like nursing, teaching and aged care, who are paid a lot less than people who just shuffle stocks around or who produce things like cigarettes or fast food, which are known to cause harm. 

And there are plenty of people living in poverty who made all the right decisions in life but ended up unlucky. They’ve worked hard, taken risks – as all good entrepreneurs do too – and it just didn’t pay off, or they were struck by some illness or disability that prevented them from hitting the big time. 

Libertarianism

There is another avenue of argument that has been used to justify the wealth of billionaires: libertarianism. American philosopher Robert Nozick argued that people have a fundamental right to own and trade property, and as long as they do so according to principles of justice, then they can accumulate as much as they want. In fact, taking someone’s property away and giving it to someone else, such as through taxation and welfare spending, is unjust. 

Nozick’s argument harkens back to one offered by the English philosopher John Locke. Locke argued that raw natural resources, like land or minerals, start off belonging to no-one, and while they’re left idle, they’re worth nothing. But as soon as someone claims some natural resources (provided there’s still some left for others) and works or improves them to produce value, then they deserve to keep that value. 

The problem is whether those who have amassed great fortunes today actually acquired their original property justly.

If it turns out that the property or resources they are using to generate wealth were appropriated from others, such as through conquest or colonialism, or if others were not given the same opportunity to put a fence around their own bit of nature, then the billionaires have received an unjust and unfair advantage.  

Egalitarianism

If it’s the case that the world isn’t a level playing field, then perhaps we should focus less on what people currently have and do, and focus more on what they are owed as human beings. This brings us to egalitarianism. The most radical version states that every person, having fundamentally equal moral worth, has an equal right to share in what their society produces. According to this view, then everybody would have basically the same amount of wealth at all times.  

However, this might not feel satisfactory if it means that people get the same amount regardless of whether they work hard or not at all, or whether they contribute to society or just laze around the beach.  

Economists have also argued that a world where everyone has the same amount of stuff would be substantially less productive than a world where people are able to accumulate more resources and be rewarded for innovating and investing them efficiently. So, a world with perfect equality might see everyone living in poverty, while a world with some inequality might generate so much more wealth that everyone would, in principle, be better off. 

This has led to yet another approach, called the “difference principle”, which was advocated by the American political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls argued that we should allow some inequality, but only if those inequalities end up benefiting the least advantaged people in society. So, it doesn’t matter if a few people accrue billions, as long as it means that the poorest people also benefit to some degree. One might imagine Rawls saying: “every billionaire is a policy failure as long as there are people in poverty”. 

What’s fair?

No matter which way you think about fairness, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to justify the existence of billionaires in a world where millions of people are struggling to satisfy their basic needs.  

However, while our economic system is geared to generate the maximum possible wealth, if we leave it alone to do its thing, inequality is likely to continue to surge. The challenge of tempering inequality falls into the political sphere, with mechanisms like taxation and welfare spending being highly effective at spreading wealth and opportunity around.  

The problem is that those who are the beneficiaries of the current system – i.e. the billionaires – have a strong vested interested in preserving the status quo in order to maintain their wealth and lavish lifestyles. And it certainly helps their cause that wealth buys power and influence on the political level, as described in the Oxfam report. 

Even if we can solve the question of how best to distribute wealth in our society, which is no easy task, we are still faced by an even harder question of how to change the system to make it just. 

In September 2016, just before that year’s United States presidential election, The Claremont Review of Books published an essay that became an instant classic. It was titled “The Flight 93 Election”, and its message was stark. If voters didn’t rush the cockpit and come out for Donald Trump in numbers, then traditional values and American interests would be flown into the ground. “If you don’t try, death is certain”, was its rallying cry.

Why were conservatives so scared? Their panic reflected a real insight: for decades, liberalism — its moral values and sensibilities — had been gaining traction in American (and, more broadly, Western) culture. The worry wasn’t so much about liberalism taking over politics. On paper, at least, and despite gross and systemic failures, the United States has always been a constitutional liberal democracy. The problem was the slow and steady creep of liberal values into areas of life completely remote from politics. As a prominent conservative scholar put it:

“Liberalism is thus not merely, as is often portrayed, a narrowly political project of constitutional government and juridical defence of rights. Rather, it seeks to transform all of human life and the world.”

I’m a liberal and I believe conservatives are absolutely right on this point. Liberalism is hegemonic and liberals are the hegemons of the Western world. But that hegemony won’t last if we keep carrying on as we are.

If I had to sum up the 2024 election in a headline, it would be: “This Just In: Actually Existing Liberalism Sucks”. Liberalism is an ideology rooted in a core moral concept — fairness. It’s easy to lose sight of how extraordinary liberalism is. It teaches every single one of its members that they matter, and that every citizen, you and me included, has a legitimate expectation to be treated reasonably and fairly by the basic institutions of society. Fairness and reciprocity for all are the radical moral adventure of liberalism, and I believe it is a beautiful ideal capable of inspiring the enduring support of large majorities.

The trouble is that liberals in most liberal democracies — maybe even especially in the United States — do two things that almost seem designed to inspire resentment: they fail to take inequality seriously, and they moralise.

Consider how many times we heard the term “vibecession” in the run-up to the election. It played nonstop in The New York Times, essentially gaslighting the American public into believing that the cost of living was in their heads or, at worst, a thing of the past. But as Bernie Sanders posted on X, and reiterated in a justifiably prickly post-election podcast with the Times, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

History has much to teach us on this point. Late in life, Alexis de Tocqueville — the greatest booster of American democracy — wrote an extraordinary post-mortem on the collapse of a social and political order called The Ancien Régime and the Revolution (1856). His key insight is especially relevant today: a regime is doomed the moment it begins to be hated on a micro-level, when grievances become embedded in the interactions and practices of everyday life. “F**k you”, the average person might think when eggs cost twice as much, or “Jesus Christ!” when the inspection line for a sub-par two-bedroom apartment stretches around the block.

The United States is not unique in this respect. In fact, every single government in the Western democratic world that has faced an election recently has been replaced — whether they’ve switched from liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal. But liberalism, which prides itself on fairness and equal opportunity, is especially vulnerable to this kind of resentment when it falls short of its promises.

Which brings me to the second point of liberal folly: we moralise. Once again, let me pick on the standard bearer of correct liberal opinion, The New York Times. In the two weeks following the election — though, honestly, I could have picked any week within the past ten years — it ran two opinion pieces, one from the right and one from the left wings of its liberal factions, that exemplify the problem rather than the solution. From the right, David French argues that Trump’s 2025 administration is already poised to implode under the weight of its own incompetence and corruption. From the left, Roxane Gay declares a moral imperative to reject the Republican worldview entirely, writing, “We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion”.

Come on. Liberals just got their asses handed to them two weeks ago. Our first impulse cannot be to scold and denounce — that’s exactly why liberals are hated. We can be snobs, and snobbery is one of the worst traits imaginable. It’s a particular kind of pleasure rooted in making inequality felt and hurt. If that’s the only solace liberals can offer themselves right now, we’re in serious trouble. The cockpit liberals need to rush isn’t the wider electorate but an elite orthodoxy that insists it has all the practical and moral answers.

What should liberals do? First, we need to chill. Liberalism remains culturally and politically hegemonic in the West, and Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day. Second, we need to pivot. People will, of course, have different opinions about the way forward. But if I could issue a categorical imperative for liberals, it would be this: keep striving for a country built for everyone, and don’t talk down to those who think differently. Third, we need to listen. To tip my own hand, the best proposal I’ve heard for how liberals should regroup comes from Sohrab Ahmari — himself no friend of liberalism — in a post on X. Here it is in full:

“Imagine a left without the freaky pronoun brigade; that’s reasonably restrictionist on the border (where most voters are); that backs policing and caters to sociality instead of the antisocial; but at the same time is populist on the economy. That’s … pretty attractive.”

That sounds like Trumpism, some would say. I think not, but this isn’t the place to make my case.

The point is that liberals must stop retreating into smugness and start confronting the realities that have alienated so many. Liberalism’s promise of fairness is worth fighting for, but only if we’re willing to embody it, not just preach it.

If we want to hold onto this hegemony of ours, we need to act like it’s worth saving. And that means changing — fast.

This article was originally published by ABC Religion and Ethics.

Image by Andreas Praefcke.