The truth is that inequality (of wealth/ outcome) is neither good nor bad, it is a perfectly neutral, one must assess why it has arisen and ask if the causes of that inequality are inherently good or bad. Changes in equality can be the symptom of something good or of something bad . For example a rise in inequality can be the result of some becoming better off while others remain the same (good by any objective measure) or the result of some becoming worse off while others remain the same (bad by the same measure). Instead of wasting time trying to address relative poverty (which focuses on inequality and thus is always aimed at punishing the rich rather than helping the poor) the issue we must focus on is absolute poverty. As Ian Duncan Smith has recently highlighted, such absolute poverty is primarily the result of family breakdown and poverty traps such as our ridiculous welfare system, financial poverty a symptom not a cause of a more widely understood social poverty. If people are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and to concentrate on their own welfare (rather than constantly being told by the likes of the reverend that they must judge themselves relative to others) then perhaps the position of the poor and the social breakdown that goes with such poverty may diminish.

As Churchill famously said “the inherent vice of capitalism in the unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Inequality is not inherently bad and hurting the rich will not help the poor. The only way to help the poor is through helping them achieve some kind of economic independence; by getting them back to work, taxing them less and encouraging them to take responsibility for their own lives and communities. The socialist view, put forward by the reverend, that redistribution and greater equality will end (or slow) social breakdown is a complete Non sequitur, it is tantamount to saying that the only way for the rich to stop criminals robbing them is to let the government rob them instead.

I would agree with this in principle, but it depends on how they got rich and upon who's back. Apologising for Bill Gates wealth is no way forward. See the first post, and don't forget the Conservatives repressing reports on links to crime and poverty. In the 1930's there was lower expectations and most importantly, less to steal.

Reply: I am all in favour of reducing inequality by creating circumstances in which the poor can get richer. You cannot, however, make the poor rich by seeking to make the rich poor.

and

"I dislike big government, because it is so often clumsy and insensitive, damaging civil liberties in the name of security, and damaging free enterprise in the name of equality."

So why did you vote for smoking to be banned in public places – and, more specifically, pubs? Couldn't people have been left to decide for themselves? Wasn't that "clumsy and insensitive", and "damaging civil liberties"? Or do you believe the nonsense about passive smoking that not even government health expert Julian Le Grand believes?

I believe this too, but liberal economics can be justified independently of political liberty on the grounds that it happens to work better (i.e. raise living standards higher) than any alternative economic system yet devised. Indeed I think it was this realization, which can be determined on actual observed economic decline of those countries that shunned economic liberalism, that can said to be responsible for the discrediting of socialism as a viable political system among those people that previously supported it.

The connection between political liberalism and anti-social behavior is an interesting one for me. We are all familiar with pictures of the regimented lines of children seen in despotic societies up to and including North Korea today. But it seems to me there are interesting differences even between Western societies. I lived in Germany for a time, where I first heard the expression “Monkey Island” applied to Britain because of the unruly nature of our school-children. And it seemed to me when observing the orderly school children in Germany (and also in other societies like Japan) that there indeed some truth to the charge that young Britons are more unruly than their peers elsewhere. If the charge has some truth to it then it seems to me that there must be something about our national culture that leads to noticeable differences in behavior of people so young. Some of these unruly kindergarten students will graduate into fine upstanding citizens, but some will also become the ‘feral youths’ responsible for much of the anti-social behavior that bedevils the land. The interesting question for me is whether there is a connection between a culture that tolerates a certain degree of indiscipline in the young, and the free-thinking creative spirits responsible for making the English-speaking world the pathfinder in the technological, cultural and economic spheres worldwide? If so then the danger would be that in clamping down on the root causes of ‘Breakdown Britain’ we might to some extent extinguish the spark of creativity responsible for so much of what Britain has achieved in the past and which seems more vital than ever for economic success in the post-industrial 21st century.

Doesn't take much of an extreme. The fact that economic growth is a compound function means that a country with a higher growth rate outpaces competitors very quickly indeed. For example it is only 19 years since Ireland cut its corporation tax & in the interim, by achieving 7% growth, has gone from being 2/3rds as rich as us to more than 4/3rds making even those on 60% of the average (ie "official" poverty) nearly as rich as the UK average.

Ireland didn't have to embrace the Protestant work ethic, nor us communism, to make that happen.

"presence of more anti social behaviour than in say, Islamic societies where the moral grip of religion is greater"

Their anti-social behaviour is just different.

A country that has been formed in Christianity is, therefore, going to behave very differently from a country that has been formed by juju or by militant Islam. It will tend to believe in the importance of cooperation, of decent behaviour, of helping your neighbour.
A juju society will depend on fear, on magic and on charms and cursing. It will not be founded on anything other than personal survival, if necessary, at everyone else's expense.
An Islamic society will depend (words left out)on following, to the letter, the path to paradise (Sharia).
A Catholic country will tend to be much more hierarchical (like the Church) and much more dogmatic. A Protestant country will tend to be more independent and more made up of individuals.
And so on.
Please let's stop lumping religions together under a "religions" tag. It is as daft as doing the same in either economics or politics.