On one side of a city there are people so wealthy that after big parties, they are throwing out meat. On the other side there are people so poor, they cannot afford to buy meat.
Is this a moral problem?
–This question is a litmus test. It is attributed to John Rawls, liberal theorist from the 1970s. Free market and laissez faire conservatives see no problem – they think it’s “in the nature of things” that some people have more than they know what to do with, while others live with scarcity. For them, the inequality is simply not an issue.
Next, there are people who say it’s a technical problem of not enough food being grown to keep everybody in abundance, not a moral problem.
But liberals see it differently. Liberals feel there is something wrong with a system (city, nation) which in total, contains enough food for everybody, but not everyone is able to get it. The situation is unjust.
Liberalism – the left – rests on moral judgments. A prime moral is justice.
A Pew Research article 2011, reporting on their national poll, shows that while the average member of the public remains positive to capitalism, people aged 18-29 said they liked socialism better than capitalism (here, see the table under “Socialism and Capitalism” by category).