Absolutely. Either accept your lot in life or try to overcome it. I can't see a good way of regulating lookism. Hey, Abercrombie & Fitch have been able to get away with it for years (http://jezebel.com/5479980/american-beauty-a-brief-history-o...).

Well, if we can't get away from lookism, we need to have ways to redistribute the effects, right? We do it with smarts (if we assume that, in the aggregate, smart people make more money), so why not with good looks? So, attractive people need to sleep with the uglies, and the more attractive they are, the more they should do it. We'll add a few fields to tax forms where you enter your hotornot.com score, and a few months later if you're ugly you get sex coupons to spend and beautiful people get an assigned amount of sex coupons to collect.

(I usually use this argument to argue against wealth redistribution and progressive taxing, but I guess it works the other way around too ;) )

Well progressive taxation already redistributes money whether it's from aggregate advants of smarts or looks. You're talking of non-economic advantages, which are not redistributed for smarts either

Oh you're right, this article actually disproves my point. Doh.

I think that is a part of the imbalance, those that have good looks tend to be more confident and thus are more likely to succeed.