41000 The flaw with this argument is that an individual gets economically rewarded for those attributes of his personality that he did not cultivate, evolve or learn of his own industry and enterprise. In other words, talents in rendering music, mathematical ability and good looks, etc are to a large extent genetically determined. So what we see here is a subtle form of Eugenics. There are also shades of Social Darwinism attached to Kristol’s hypothesis, wherein the capitalist system will eliminate those individuals who are unable to contribute to the economy. It is also impetuous of Kristol to state that “luck” is a valid determinant of human dignity. To imply that the indignation suffered by those living in absolute poverty is a matter of bad fortune while the luxuries enjoyed by the rich minority are attributable to an element of good luck is too simplistic an argument to make. In making a comparison between “social justice” and “capitalism” Kristol mentions how capitalism is neither egalitarian nor authoritarian. One gets an impression that there is no virtue in aspiring for an egalitarian society and that authoritarianism is inherently defective. Both the conceptions are false. Secondly, authoritarianism is not a decadent concept as the author would have us believe. There are objections to this line of argument. First of all, isn’t it a universal principle of justice and decency that no section of humanity should be living in absolute poverty?