Economic inequality is a political problem because it is the result of ineffective governance of a capitalist institutional mechanism that has led to an unequal distribution of wealth. With capitalism emphasizing profit, the production of wealth has been given more priority than distribution. However, the result of this mechanism is due to the fact that the government neglected to consider the best distribution of wealth, despite its duty to support citizens to maximize their happiness. Mill's utilitarian theory helps explain how this mechanism has led to income inequality that prevents society from achieving ultimate happiness and why the best distribution of wealth is an equal distribution to have equal opportunities in society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Economic inequality is a political problem because it limits the individual's pursuit of happiness. With liberty being the essential element of well-being in his theory, this result could be due to ineffective governance, as Mills considers the duty of government to be to encourage individuals to maximize their happiness by developing their individuality. Since economic wealth is a necessary means for an individual to develop their human capabilities, this lack of freedom for those without such means will be categorized by Mill as not being free. Given these circumstances, he would continue to consider this result to be oppression in that the individual is not free to pursue their happiness due to the result of such misgovernance. As capitalism is primarily focused on profit through production and consumption, Mill would consider the unequal distribution of wealth which led to economic inequality. As a libertarian, he would see the legislature encouraging the production of wealth in order to ensure that the owner of goods obtained through the free use of his body and mind can enjoy all the benefits of property. However, the legislator must also achieve the best distribution which makes it possible to obtain the greatest happiness in society, where we say so. Having an equal distribution without squandering individual freedom would be consistent with his view of best distribution. Although Mill would argue against government redistribution of wealth as unjustifiable if it tramples on individual freedom, it could be implied that he would do so. Inequality of view must be subdued in the name of the common good if we are to protect all persons in the free use of the faculties of body and mind and enjoy the goods that can be obtained through such activities. Although one can see that this would result in the rich no longer enjoying the same wealth they would have had during this redistribution, the extension of Mill's utilitarianism which follows the greatest happiness principle will indicate the decrease in the marginal utility of wealth and that the same amount of money would be more valuable in the eyes of the poor than in the eyes of the rich. Furthermore, there is no reason to show that an unequal distribution of wealth would lead to a reduction in wealth production, since the rich man would still be relatively better off in terms of wealth than the poor man. Equal distribution would simply allow the poor to have enough economic means to freely pursue their own individuality, as Mill was strongly opposed to charity as he feared that it would breed dependent rather than self-reliant citizens. Thus, aequal distribution will allow these unfree citizens to have the fundamental freedom to pursue happiness, which will result in greater happiness in society, and can be considered the best distribution of wealth. In the case of income inequality with certain professions requiring education or training of a certain social rank, giving these individuals a monopoly on wage rates while the majority of the population cannot meet the requirements demanded by professions. With a fair distribution of wealth, those who were previously not free to pursue such careers will now have the opportunity to do so. Ensuring fair competition through this distribution will always guarantee free competition to the extent that only those who succeed in meeting career requirements will be able to practice the profession. However, it is important to note that this extension of opportunity to all citizens who were not free to do so will encourage the marketplace of ideas, constituting a collective benefit to society as it allows for diversity, triggering more contribution in professional fields. The solution proposed to ensure a more equitable distribution of opportunities involved universal education. Allowing greater participation in certain opportunities, such as encouraging literacy, will encourage individuals not to be imprisoned in a fixed social position into which they were born. Despite ineffective governance in managing capitalist institutional mechanisms, education will allow individuals to have more opportunities to pursue their individuality and, as such, it can be argued that equal distribution of opportunities will lead to good collective social. Mill's solution to economic inequality fits into the contemporary context by considering equalization in the distribution of opportunities, as reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Originally in the UN Millennium Development Goals, one of the goals was to achieve universal primary education by 2015. Despite the significant improvement from 2000, the goal of sub-Saharan Africa to have the same number of enrollments as other developing countries is still lagging behind as their growth has been hampered by various factors such as lack of quality educators and support institutional to make access to education more inclusive. The emphasis on primary education has improved basic literacy rates, which can directly contribute to reducing poverty rates. However, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals saw the limitations of the original goal of universal primary education and in turn focused on achieving quality education as the foundation for sustainable development at scale. worldwide. By ensuring the development of inclusive education that aims for lifelong learning, this will encourage learning at all ages in developing countries and contribute to better resources for quality education, as qualified educators for future generations. Through such universal education goals, it will help promote social progress on a global scale by directly creating an environment that encourages individuality and creativity by improving the quality of modern mass society. Improving literacy rates and the basic education level of citizens will promote the collective exercise of reason by encouraging them to think for themselves, pushing them not to remain stuck in “collective mediocrity” in which a fruitful debate in the public sphere is lacking..