As one reads in the news about the details of the Congressional relief plan (sending checks to people and making loans to businesses, etc.) that are being debated presently, two things stand out:
1. It's stingy towards the people who need help the most.
2. It's absurd. (Why pay lower income people less; they're the ones who need help the most? Why pay people an amount based solely on their income and number of children when people with the same income and number of children may differ enormously in their needs and expenses (such as health care)? Why pay small businesses just a small amount per employee who can't work when those employees need much more now? ETC, ETC.)
The stinginess and absurdity are quite evident to most people who are paying attention to this. Most people think that the RATIONAL and morally JUST principle for the relief to be based on is the egalitarian one: Those who contribute reasonably according to ability (which includes those who are willing to work even if, for no fault of their own, they are unable to work, and includes children and those above retirement age considered unable to work) should be able to have what they need (housing, food, clothing, medical care, education, etc.) or reasonably desire (fun stuff) with scarce things equitably rationed according to need.
But HOW can this rational and morally just principle be implemented?
Can it be implemented in a money-based society like ours?
No. Here's why not.
In our money-based society in which everything is bought and sold, the only way for people who contribute reasonably according to need to be able to have what they need or reasonably desire, but not have far MORE than this (which would be unjust hogging!) is for them to have just enough money--but no more than this--to buy these things. Since two people might differ greatly in how much they can reasonably contribute and yet have the same needs, it doesn't work to pay people simply according to how much they contribute, does it? So, in a money-based society, it would be necessary to somehow pay people who contribute reasonably according to ability the exact amount of money they need--no more and no less--regardless of what their ability to contribute is.
But how is this even possible?
It's not possible!
This is why the Congressional relief plan is doomed to be absurd even if public pressure forces Congress to be less stingy.
Congress dares not even acknowledge that the morally just and only non-absurd economic principle is "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need." Why not? Because the rich upper class, to which Congress is actually beholden, exists only due to the VIOLATION of that principle. Congress dares not acknowledge what most people know full well.
The egalitarian economic principle is PRACTICAL too. It is practical because:
a) It worked wonderfully in Spain in 1936-9 [1]
b) Most (not all, most) people, when they know society is based on the egalitarian principle, are perfectly happy to abide by it, meaning they will work reasonably according to ability and take (for free--money is not used at all!) only what they need or reasonably desire. Most of those few who are not perfectly happy to abide by the egalitarian principle will, due to public shaming if they don't, nonetheless abide by it.
c) The very few who refuse to abide by the egalitarian principle--i.e., freeloaders and/or hogs--will stand out and be obvious, so they can be dealt with (forcibly if necessary) easily. Read more about how an egalitarian economy works at https://www.pdrboston.org/what-is-an-egalitarian-economy .
We cannot make things be right unless we have a clear vision of what is right. When lots of people have that shared vision, then there will be a massive movement--an egalitarian revolutionary movement--to make it so. Let's promote a huge public discussion of this egalitarian vision.
------------------------
1. https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-in-spain-1936-9