In terms of income, the panelists on this site by and large belong to humanity's top ventile (5%) -- where the average income is 9 times the global average. This is roughly 300 times more than what is available to people in the bottom quarter, where average income is about 1/32 of the global average. (The difference is still about 100:1 if one adjusts for purchasing power parities.) Moreover, people in the bottom quarter typically work longer hours in more exhausting jobs, and have about 20 to 30 fewer years of life. So, yes, those among whom you live do not enjoy anything like our opportunities to live a full human life, anything like our freedom to learn, think, enjoy, and be creative.

These huge discrepancies are profoundly unjust, and it would be good if many people in the more affluent countries used their much greater powers to change the world toward overcoming such injustice. Unfortunately, this is not happening, though some are trying. Those who have most power to contribute to change also have the least vivid sense of how urgently such change is needed.

So I think your friend is wrong, and wrong on both counts. Being affluent does not mean changing the world -- most affluent people make no effort to promote justice or any other greatly needed or otherwise important changes. And being poor does not mean not changing the world. Think of the Manchester dock workers who helped end slavery. Think of the millions who marched with Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Think of those who denied the US victory in Vietnam. Think of the garment workers in Bangladesh who just won an 80% raise in the minimum wage (from $25 to $45 per month), thereby lifting the spirits and in due time the wages of millions of grievously exploited workers in other poor countries. Ideally, of course, rich and poor should change the world together, toward reducing poverty and injustice, and toward preserving the health and beauty of our planet and its many species. Realistically, I would expect at least as much of a contribution to needed changes form the world's poor as from the world's affluent who, despite their much greater freedoms and capacities, typically find the status quo morally quite tolerable. I won't pass judgment on those who feel they are too poor to help change the world. But I do think it wrong, both empirically and morally, to count out the poor as important agents in human history.

I think part of the answer is that education can be well targeted on the children in need. By contrast, it's hard to provide food and shelter to children in ways that are not exploitable by their caretakers. So the worry is, for example, that, if we institute the mandatory provision of shelter for children, then adults who want a decent apartment will have children in order to be provided with one.

In my view, this problem is often overstated. A decent health-care minimum can be targeted (and in any case adults should enjoy it as well regardless of income), and targeting for food could also be improved (e.g. by providing good food in schools and kindergartens rather than food stamps that can often be traded in for cash or commodities from which children do not benefit). So my answer to your "why" is meant as an explanation, not a justification. The shortfalls in food, shelter and health care that children suffer, in the US and in the world at large, are horrific. They should be much reduced -- and could be, without much adverse effect from perverse incentives.

haven't read the nussbaum piece alexander suggests; but i believe one of the motivations of the french law is a security one -- though not many french women wear them, there already have been incidents of men criminals/or terrorists wearing them to escape detection ... (there certainly have been many such in the mid-east where burks are more common) .... and there you have the public interest in security weighed against the individual 'right' to obscure oneself .... I can also see a case made that genuine participation in the civic life of a free society requiers being visible -- identifiable -- sure there's an important role for anonymity, but people's whose opinions are only expressed anonymously when they have nothign to fear from expressing them non-anonymously seem to me to be worth less ... (maybe) ... so that might be a second reason to reject such a ban (though weighs less heavily against the religious desire to wear one, I suppose) ....

just some thoughts

Andrew

that's a beautiful (and enormous) question! but is it just a semantic question -- ie how shall we use the word 'peace', should we apply it even to cases where there is merely the absence of war (eg relationship between Egypt/Israel) -- or is it something deeper? Pretty clearly (if not exhaustively) we could begin to identify any number of factors/aspect of 'peaceful' relationships -- starting with non-explicit violence, but then adding things like economic cooperation, cultural exchanges, inter-country travel etc. -- and decide (maybe arbitrarily) to restrict the word "peace" to cases where some of these are present, to some significant degree -- and say things like 'that's not REALLY peace between Egypt/Israel" -- but maybe not much is gained by decisions about how to use the word 'peace', once we begin identifying those factors which constitute genuine relationships between countries ....

best,

Andrew Pessin

I think there are a number of problems with this form of violent protest. First, I don't see how this vandalism accomplishes anything positive. It doesn't help anyone. It doesn't punish BP. It doesn't conserve a single drop of oil. It doesn't draw attention to an unknown problem (anyone who doesn't know about the Gulf oil spill is living in a cave). At best, this energy is wasted and should have been used on more productive endeavors.

Second, the violence is against a relatively innocent third party. The Gallery in no way causes BPs actions. They neither buy nor sell from them. Virtually nothing in the universe would be different if they had refused BPs donations. They are 'guilty' of accepting a gift. I seriously doubt there is anyone who thinks, 'well, the oil spill is terrible, but BP is a fine organization because they donate to Tate.' It is hard for me to see why 'accepting legal donations from an environmentally reckless company' would merit this style of violence.

Third, this sort of 'protest' undermines the public order. If it is acceptable to vandalize the property of those whose environmental policies we disagree with, can we expand that to other moral causes? It seems to me that there are people involved in a broad range of causes that are equally confident in the righteousness and importance of their cause, but if all of them feel free to resort to violence it would hurt us all and we would descend into anarchy.

Fourth, we live in liberal democracies that have legitimate and peaceful ways of engaging in dialogue and protest. What exactly does the 'violence' involved in the protest gain the environment or the protesters that couldn't have been accomplished without it?

To sum up: In liberal democracies where numerous peaceful and legal routes of protest are possible, I don't think violent property damage is ever justified to 'get a point across'. They should use their time organizing, voting, protesting, and conserving in positive and legal ways.