3 ms·

(1) Equality of what? (2) What does "unfair" mean? (3) Random allocation of N cabs is better than market allocation of M > N. How do find an (N,M) for which t

(1) Equality of what? (2) What does "unfair" mean? (3) Random allocation of N cabs is better than market allocation of M > N. How do find an (N,M) for which the statement is false? Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs? Actually making the moral argument is harder than just spouting applause points like "equality FTW".

coldtea 11y ago
1) Equality of access to whatever society / the world offers. 2) Unfair in this example means that something beneficial is given to some citizens over others just because they have more money -- as opposed to alternatives like: because they've benefited their society more, because they have equal rights as any other, or because of an actual merit. 3) "Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs?" Yes, because the latter case doesn't promote inequality, further privileging those that already have money. This "market allocation of 100 cabs" doesn't help at all anybody without the necessary cutoff amount. So essentially your question is: is it better to have a service cattering to just the top 100 richer people of a city, or to not have it at all. If it was something inconsequential, like manicure, that would may be OK. Something like cab service OTOH puts poor oeople in a further disadvantage. E.g. going to a job interview, one of the rich cab riders can get faster and more relaxed than the poor public transport/walking guy. Also not having access to a cab might even give a motive to those 100 with more money and power to fix public transport to be better.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  1) But access is not equal. Some people get a cab, others don't. 2) Does this apply to all goods? Are you simply advocating communism here? 3) I'm glad you acknowledge that you'd rather have us all be equally poor than have some be richer than others. This is probably another reason we disagree - I don't view other people having more than me as an intrinsically bad thing. I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor. This is apparently why we disagree. Good to know it's due simply to different moral axioms rather than some error in reasoning.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    1) Yes. But a random distribution benefits the population in a non-discriminating pattern, instead of re-encorcing the rule of the richer. 2) Why, is there a problem with that? First of, all communism is not necessarily stalinist communism the kind that prevailed in the 20th century. In fact such "communal" ideas go millenia before even Marx. Second, a society with renewable power, advanced automation, and they kind of resources we have, or will soon have, will inevitably need some form of "communism". Most sci-fi depictions of society, even Star Trek at times, are quite near that. >I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor. Actually India follows more or less the US model -- they just are behind, as a developing country. There are super rich, a middle class (increasing) and super poor. And if you think that in the US there's "high inequality but everyone is rich" you've probably never set foot outside of a middle class/upper middle class echo chamber. From SD, MS, NM, AZ, AL, to the thousands of homeless in NY, Chicago, SF, etc, the trailer poor, the ghettos, etc. That's not some outliers. As for me, I prefer the model of the US in the 50s and 60s. Less super-rich, everybody can make a living, less super poor, much decreased inequality and more protections. And I don't mind having "socialist" niceties like cheap education (like college tuition used to be), municipal fiber and wifi, and such. Large parts of the US are like backwaters when it comes to health, quality of life, public transport, internet acccess speeds and such things compared to some Western European countries.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      India is a lot more equal than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... The US is extremely rich. We have close to 100% penetration of flush toilets, clean water, 24/7 power, etc. 75% of our (relative) "poor" have a car, 70% live in a house with 2 rooms/person, and 45% own that home. In most of the world the word for that is "rich". http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Compare to overall numbers in India, or if you can find them, to various communist nations. Hopefully India will get to the US model, they are certainly taking many positive steps. I'm bullish. But they aren't remotely there yet. Basically the entire country lives in what would be called deep extreme poverty (e.g. probably the bottom 1%) in the US. I also wouldn't want to go back to the poverty of the US 50's and 60's. I think everyone deserves a flush toilet (as in our modern "some people are richer than others" world), not just the top 80-90% (back when we were more "equal").
- Canada 11y ago
  Preventing market participants from overtly bidding with money doesn't make the competition for access magically go away. Resources are going to be allocated, and it's sure not going to happen "randomly". For services such as taxis or health care, the currency merely shifts to personal clout and time. Money buys both of those things anyway.

coldtea 11y ago

1) Equality of access to whatever society / the world offers. 2) Unfair in this example means that something beneficial is given to some citizens over others just because they have more money -- as opposed to alternatives like: because they've benefited their society more, because they have equal rights as any other, or because of an actual merit. 3) "Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs?" Yes, because the latter case doesn't promote inequality, further privileging those that already have money. This "market allocation of 100 cabs" doesn't help at all anybody without the necessary cutoff amount. So essentially your question is: is it better to have a service cattering to just the top 100 richer people of a city, or to not have it at all. If it was something inconsequential, like manicure, that would may be OK. Something like cab service OTOH puts poor oeople in a further disadvantage. E.g. going to a job interview, one of the rich cab riders can get faster and more relaxed than the poor public transport/walking guy. Also not having access to a cab might even give a motive to those 100 with more money and power to fix public transport to be better.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
1) But access is not equal. Some people get a cab, others don't. 2) Does this apply to all goods? Are you simply advocating communism here? 3) I'm glad you acknowledge that you'd rather have us all be equally poor than have some be richer than others. This is probably another reason we disagree - I don't view other people having more than me as an intrinsically bad thing. I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor. This is apparently why we disagree. Good to know it's due simply to different moral axioms rather than some error in reasoning.
- coldtea 11y ago
  1) Yes. But a random distribution benefits the population in a non-discriminating pattern, instead of re-encorcing the rule of the richer. 2) Why, is there a problem with that? First of, all communism is not necessarily stalinist communism the kind that prevailed in the 20th century. In fact such "communal" ideas go millenia before even Marx. Second, a society with renewable power, advanced automation, and they kind of resources we have, or will soon have, will inevitably need some form of "communism". Most sci-fi depictions of society, even Star Trek at times, are quite near that. >I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor. Actually India follows more or less the US model -- they just are behind, as a developing country. There are super rich, a middle class (increasing) and super poor. And if you think that in the US there's "high inequality but everyone is rich" you've probably never set foot outside of a middle class/upper middle class echo chamber. From SD, MS, NM, AZ, AL, to the thousands of homeless in NY, Chicago, SF, etc, the trailer poor, the ghettos, etc. That's not some outliers. As for me, I prefer the model of the US in the 50s and 60s. Less super-rich, everybody can make a living, less super poor, much decreased inequality and more protections. And I don't mind having "socialist" niceties like cheap education (like college tuition used to be), municipal fiber and wifi, and such. Large parts of the US are like backwaters when it comes to health, quality of life, public transport, internet acccess speeds and such things compared to some Western European countries.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    India is a lot more equal than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... The US is extremely rich. We have close to 100% penetration of flush toilets, clean water, 24/7 power, etc. 75% of our (relative) "poor" have a car, 70% live in a house with 2 rooms/person, and 45% own that home. In most of the world the word for that is "rich". http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Compare to overall numbers in India, or if you can find them, to various communist nations. Hopefully India will get to the US model, they are certainly taking many positive steps. I'm bullish. But they aren't remotely there yet. Basically the entire country lives in what would be called deep extreme poverty (e.g. probably the bottom 1%) in the US. I also wouldn't want to go back to the poverty of the US 50's and 60's. I think everyone deserves a flush toilet (as in our modern "some people are richer than others" world), not just the top 80-90% (back when we were more "equal").
Canada 11y ago
Preventing market participants from overtly bidding with money doesn't make the competition for access magically go away. Resources are going to be allocated, and it's sure not going to happen "randomly". For services such as taxis or health care, the currency merely shifts to personal clout and time. Money buys both of those things anyway.