22 ms·

Wise words. We do need a better way to measure value people create. For example, many geniuses (inventors, thinkers, etc) who do not have business skills live

by yagga 10y ago

Wise words. We do need a better way to measure value people create. For example, many geniuses (inventors, thinkers, etc) who do not have business skills live poor while creating more value than many CEOs that can manage, negotiate, raise funds, have connections, etc. Business people do create value too by connecting people, making things happen, etc., but often their value output is overrated. Many actors and musicians and sport peopl are overrated too vs doctors who save lives. They worth a lot only because of economy of scale. Everyone knows them and they monetize their followers. In some way it is a fair world, because we all put in nearly about the same conditions. Well, except our place of birth and genetics, which we have no choice over. But everything else is up to us, which kind of makes it fair because we compete in the same conditions. However, maybe it is a time for a new system. Why not? As far as the education, the nature will do its miracle. New generations will change everything, they will know what to do because they born in new world. Everything will work out on its own as it should. It is happening.

holograham 10y ago
You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention. The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world? Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" regulations (e.g. welfare programs). The ultimate problem with this approach is people will rarely agree on what is fair. There is no set definition and wants/desires change over time -- even needs do to (like needing a cell phone now vs 20 years ago). This ever evolving definition of fairness is what ensures this debate will rage on indefinitely.
- chongli 10y ago
  You are conflating fairness vs. justice. There's an entire philosophy based on the work of John Rawls [0] that codifies the conflation of these ideas [1]. It's not at all a simple matter to strive for justice in an unfair world. Some libertarian folks elsewhere in this discussion have brought up the idea that taxes are theft. On the opposite end of that spectrum, I've heard it argued that property rights are a form of violence. What does it mean for the rights of an individual if, in a hypothetical future, all arable land is owned, fenced off, tended by drones, and guarded with extreme prejudice? A Mad Max-style dystopia sprinkled with little walled gardens. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

by yagga 10y ago

holograham 10y ago

You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention. The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world? Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" regulations (e.g. welfare programs). The ultimate problem with this approach is people will rarely agree on what is fair. There is no set definition and wants/desires change over time -- even needs do to (like needing a cell phone now vs 20 years ago). This ever evolving definition of fairness is what ensures this debate will rage on indefinitely.

chongli 10y ago
You are conflating fairness vs. justice. There's an entire philosophy based on the work of John Rawls [0] that codifies the conflation of these ideas [1]. It's not at all a simple matter to strive for justice in an unfair world. Some libertarian folks elsewhere in this discussion have brought up the idea that taxes are theft. On the opposite end of that spectrum, I've heard it argued that property rights are a form of violence. What does it mean for the rights of an individual if, in a hypothetical future, all arable land is owned, fenced off, tended by drones, and guarded with extreme prejudice? A Mad Max-style dystopia sprinkled with little walled gardens. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness