4 ms·
Any alternative to voluntary agreements would inject noise in the feedback that the humans involved can use to improve themselves and, ultimately, the species.
by sebastianconcpt 10y ago
Any alternative to voluntary agreements would inject noise in the feedback that the humans involved can use to improve themselves and, ultimately, the species. You can't have equal opportunity. It's an impossible goal. It can't possibly exist. What should be possible is to have some kind of Fair Opportunity by optimizing it somehow but never equal. You need that constraint loose in the system so it can create wealth. Pursuing equality is only pre-authorize coercion and will converge in totalitarianism (because victimists will always bug you ad-infinitum to achieve their claims of lack of equality).
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago>You can't have equal opportunity. It's an impossible goal. I never said we could have completely equal opportunity. But by implication, the outcomes of our voluntary agreements are never perfectly ethical or completely justified. Redistribution of wealth makes up for the fact that the playing field is never completely level. Rejecting all social processes that lead to peaceful redistribution of wealth or to more equal opportunity is both unpragmatic and unethical. Also, extreme inequality distorts markets massively. It's much more than just noise. Markets break down completely if too many participants are forced to sell or buy at any price just to survive.
- sebastianconcpt 10y agoVoluntary agreements are ethical by definition and because they are voluntary. Curious that you call unethical to voluntary agreements and simultaneously imply that peaceful redistribution of wealth is ethical when you can't do it without coercion which is exactly unethical. Explain how this peaceful redistribution of wealth is any good? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjvJAfIMSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjvJAfIMSI