4 ms·

The era of 'equality of opportunity' is over. The left-wing want equality of results.

by hodwik 11y ago

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
And the right wing wants anyone whose talents aren't easily monetizeable to starve to death. See, we can throw out silly generalizations all day.
- hodwik 11y ago
  The difference is that the mainstream left-wing themselves routinely say that they want equality of outcome: Paul Krugman's -- "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be." Or as Ezra Klein put it -- "In truth, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren't opposites. They're partners. Companions. Inseparable amigos. You can't have real equality of opportunity without equality of outcome. A rich parent can purchase test prep a poor parent can't. A rich parent can usher their children into social networks a poor parent can't. A rich parent can make donations to Harvard that a poor parent can't." Or Jonathan Chait -- "the attempt to draw a distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity collapses immediately." No mainstream right-winger is getting anywhere close to arguing that people should starve to death.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    In the UK we have a government that is actively starving the terminally ill to death, by classifying them as "fit for work" and stopping subsistence benefit payouts for them. This is true even if they're bedridden. The government is right-wing.
    - hodwik 11y ago
      Careful, you're using "Starving" in that instance as hyperbole. Losing your benefits and starving are two very different things. In the US we have a government safety net, and a private safety net. If someone falls out of the government safety net, as they are sometimes known to do, there are still churches and non-profits across the country which will provide them with food and shelter. They may lose benefits, but they're not starving. That distinction is important.
      - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        Not starving, just generically dying: 2,380 people died between December 2011 and February 2014 within 14 days of being taken off employment and support allowance. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I'm sorry, but I find your comment astonishingly insensitive and disrespectful to those on the wrong end of this change. tl;dr People are dying because of government policy. Some people have in fact quite literally starved to death. There is absolutely no hyperbole involved here. It's a literal, physical, undeniable fact. The possibility that others may perhaps find their way to private help is largely irrelevant, because private help - if it exists at all - is geographically patchy, resource constrained, and often disorganised. I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have to experience what this means in practice.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "No mainstream right-winger is getting anywhere close to arguing that people should starve to death." They're not saying it in those exact words, but they are clearly saying that.
    - hodwik 11y ago
      Even if they were saying that, which they aren't, it doesn't really matter given that no one (outside of three special cases) in America starves. Those three cases are abused children, the mentally ill, and forgotten elderly. In all cases food scarcity was not the problem. They're problems of community oversight.
  - papapra 11y ago
    I like this warren buffett's thought experiment : http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-the-ovarian-lottery-2013-12?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-the-ovarian... I really want to know what do you think is wrong with it?
    - hodwik 11y ago
      Republicans agree in-so-far as we believe we need to create a society with the best possible outcomes for the most people. Despite what Liberals pundits often claim, that's never been in disagreement. The disagreement is about what type of system produces the best results -- be that using cultural change and market forces to bring up the general tide, or giving increasing power to a central government to try to force equality of outcomes. We believe that if you try to force equal outcomes, you end up destroying your civilization. The best you can hope for is freedom. That means we believe in making the world better without government coercion, and we believe that history supports that position.
  - pixl97 11y ago
    Reminds me of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

The era of 'equality of opportunity' is over. The left-wing want equality of results.

by hodwik 11y ago

The era of 'equality of opportunity' is over. The left-wing want equality of results.

And the right wing wants anyone whose talents aren't easily monetizeable to starve to death. See, we can throw out silly generalizations all day.

hodwik 11y ago
The difference is that the mainstream left-wing themselves routinely say that they want equality of outcome: Paul Krugman's -- "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be." Or as Ezra Klein put it -- "In truth, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren't opposites. They're partners. Companions. Inseparable amigos. You can't have real equality of opportunity without equality of outcome. A rich parent can purchase test prep a poor parent can't. A rich parent can usher their children into social networks a poor parent can't. A rich parent can make donations to Harvard that a poor parent can't." Or Jonathan Chait -- "the attempt to draw a distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity collapses immediately." No mainstream right-winger is getting anywhere close to arguing that people should starve to death.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  In the UK we have a government that is actively starving the terminally ill to death, by classifying them as "fit for work" and stopping subsistence benefit payouts for them. This is true even if they're bedridden. The government is right-wing.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    Careful, you're using "Starving" in that instance as hyperbole. Losing your benefits and starving are two very different things. In the US we have a government safety net, and a private safety net. If someone falls out of the government safety net, as they are sometimes known to do, there are still churches and non-profits across the country which will provide them with food and shelter. They may lose benefits, but they're not starving. That distinction is important.
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      Not starving, just generically dying: 2,380 people died between December 2011 and February 2014 within 14 days of being taken off employment and support allowance. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      I'm sorry, but I find your comment astonishingly insensitive and disrespectful to those on the wrong end of this change. tl;dr People are dying because of government policy. Some people have in fact quite literally starved to death. There is absolutely no hyperbole involved here. It's a literal, physical, undeniable fact. The possibility that others may perhaps find their way to private help is largely irrelevant, because private help - if it exists at all - is geographically patchy, resource constrained, and often disorganised. I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have to experience what this means in practice.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "No mainstream right-winger is getting anywhere close to arguing that people should starve to death." They're not saying it in those exact words, but they are clearly saying that.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    Even if they were saying that, which they aren't, it doesn't really matter given that no one (outside of three special cases) in America starves. Those three cases are abused children, the mentally ill, and forgotten elderly. In all cases food scarcity was not the problem. They're problems of community oversight.
- papapra 11y ago
  I like this warren buffett's thought experiment : http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-the-ovarian-lottery-2013-12?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-the-ovarian... I really want to know what do you think is wrong with it?
  - hodwik 11y ago
    Republicans agree in-so-far as we believe we need to create a society with the best possible outcomes for the most people. Despite what Liberals pundits often claim, that's never been in disagreement. The disagreement is about what type of system produces the best results -- be that using cultural change and market forces to bring up the general tide, or giving increasing power to a central government to try to force equality of outcomes. We believe that if you try to force equal outcomes, you end up destroying your civilization. The best you can hope for is freedom. That means we believe in making the world better without government coercion, and we believe that history supports that position.
- pixl97 11y ago
  Reminds me of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron