:Luck vs Individual effort【2】

Matt Millerは上のコラムのなかで、ジョン・ロールズとミルトン・フリードマンがともに同じ結論に達していると指摘している：個人の境遇が、幸運、Luckにあまりに広汎に左右されてしまいうる、という点において、彼らは一致していると言うのだ。そこでは、公平な機会を与えること・そして・最低限の生活水準を保証すること、こうしたことすら、公の無駄な努力となりかねないほどに、──生まれ持った資産や能力などの──Luckが深く人の生き方を決定付けると見られている。

What we're led to is the public agenda missing today, built around passionate commitments - by both liberals and conservatives - to (1) equal opportunity and (2) a minimally decent life, achieved in ways that harness market forces for public purposes.

Don't take my word for it. The surprising truth is that conservative icon Milton Friedman and liberal philosopher John Rawls agree that luck's ubiquity compels these commitments. Friedman once told me his concern for luck's reach had inspired his call for a decent minimum for the unlucky. He fathered what became the earned-income tax credit, which delivers $35 billion a year in wage subsidies to the working poor. Rawls, apostle of the just society, cheered this.

Friedman added that there is no principled way to decide what the decent minimum should be; it's a political question that depends on what taxes we're willing to pay. Rawls basically said "make it good" - but not so generous that taxes hurt growth.