In Arora's article "What Do We Deserve?," the author muses on the question about how much what people bring home is fair or unfair, whether people deserve everything what they have or don't. Aurora brings up "three major approaches to distributive economic justice: libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian" (Aurora). All three models aren't perfect, however they all present in our world. In this essay, I am going to analyze libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian models, which were presented in Aurora's article, while presenting my own view on which model of economic justice would satisfy modern society. .
In my opinion, it is nearly impossible to create a perfect model of economic justice. People can create a new model of economic justice which would satisfy a huge amount of people, but it would never satisfy all society. Each society treats the word "equality" differently, therefore equality for one society could not mean equality for another society. One might understand this word as having equal opportunities in getting education and equal amount of privileges. Another one might have a meaning of having all people economically equal. It means that in modern world one model of economic distribution wouldn't work and each society needs to create its own economic model. However, a good economic model is not the one that brings an equality into society, what is also really important, but the one that distribute country's wealth among the people fairly. There was plenty of situations when people tried to achieve equality which led to unpredictable circumstances, which are reflected in our days. .
Bringing equality into society is not always a good thing. As I am from Russia, I care much about history of my country. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin and bolsheviks seized the power in Russia, while claiming to bring people equality. The idea, of all people are equal, pushed society to follow Lenin due to people being tired of injustice in tsar's regime.