4 ms·

Why do you think that normal or any other distribution is more "fair" than Pareto?

Retra 10y ago
They didn't say another distribution is more fair? They said that we shouldn't passively accept any distribution if it is a cause of societal weakness, instability, or fragility.
- atemerev 10y ago
  What is the evidence that Pareto-distributed wealth causes more social instability? And why social stability is a good thing? Social structures are constantly evolving; some instability is required for that.
  - imartin2k 10y ago
    I define "social stability" as a state in which people within a specific society don't kill each other in large numbers over questions of resource distribution. At least based on that view, it's obvious why this is a good thing. Except if you own a spaceship or an island far away so you can leave if things get too hot - then maybe you find the goal of maintaining social stability unnecessary.
  - MaysonL 10y ago
    1929, 2008. French Revolution.
    - atemerev 10y ago
      Counter-evidence: USSR (and the entire Soviet block), Cambodia, North Korea, the fate of all "share everything" cults and communities.
      - dvtv75 10y ago
        Wasn't one of the key causes of the disintegration of the USSR the simple fact that people were using position and influence to have more than others? The further up the chain one was, they had better access to food, a better car, better medical care. The Soviet system may have paid lip service to communist and socialist ideals, but it seems as if there was a strong capitalist element in there: people who felt they worked hard believed they were entitled to more than others, and (ab)used their positions to make this happen.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      The French Revolution does not belong in the same sentence as the crashes of 1929 or 2008. Economic crashes under modern industrialist-capitalism have been much less negative than crashes under other systems. It is true that class warfare in any direction leads to social instability and discontentment. Everyone should feel that the basic resources they need to survive are attainable. I think that most successful societies, have, for the most part, had that covered.
    - hueving 10y ago
      The 2008 crash was pathetic compared to 1929, it wasn't even called a depression. There was higher unemployment and people pushed out of home ownership, but it's not like anything significant changed as a result and the economy is doing well again. 1929 is likewise pathetic compared to the french revolution. There was no large government structure or leadership change as a result.
anigbrowl 10y ago
I'll be glad to explain, but could you first step onto this patch of soft rhetorical ground so I can attack your argument for its lack of rigor? Thanks!
- atemerev 10y ago
  Sure. You speak of "naturalistic fallacy" — that "natural" order of things is not necessarily good. I agree. With this in mind, I would like to know what is your definition of "good" is. Utilitarianism?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Moral idealism, in the sense of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism is a very attractive philosophy; of course I would love to do the greatest good for the greatest number. But I am not omniscient: not only is my understanding of future consequences limited, perhaps inherently, but so is my insight into what is good for other people. I can't give you a general definition of what is good. In matters of interpersonal relations or politics I'm in favor equitable rather than equal outcomes; one could invert the standard utilitarian definition to being the least harm for the smallest number, which (imho) has considerably different implications for decision-making. Most people would classify this as a form of socialism and I'd be OK with that, but I mean it in the sense of a moral socialism than an operational or economic socialism with the connotations of central planning and so forth, which I reject. Personally, I'm mystic and artistic, and adhere to an eccentric esotericism. I apologize for the frustrations that must result.

Retra 10y ago

They didn't say another distribution is more fair? They said that we shouldn't passively accept any distribution if it is a cause of societal weakness, instability, or fragility.

atemerev 10y ago
What is the evidence that Pareto-distributed wealth causes more social instability? And why social stability is a good thing? Social structures are constantly evolving; some instability is required for that.
- imartin2k 10y ago
  I define "social stability" as a state in which people within a specific society don't kill each other in large numbers over questions of resource distribution. At least based on that view, it's obvious why this is a good thing. Except if you own a spaceship or an island far away so you can leave if things get too hot - then maybe you find the goal of maintaining social stability unnecessary.
- MaysonL 10y ago
  1929, 2008. French Revolution.
  - atemerev 10y ago
    Counter-evidence: USSR (and the entire Soviet block), Cambodia, North Korea, the fate of all "share everything" cults and communities.
    - dvtv75 10y ago
      Wasn't one of the key causes of the disintegration of the USSR the simple fact that people were using position and influence to have more than others? The further up the chain one was, they had better access to food, a better car, better medical care. The Soviet system may have paid lip service to communist and socialist ideals, but it seems as if there was a strong capitalist element in there: people who felt they worked hard believed they were entitled to more than others, and (ab)used their positions to make this happen.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The French Revolution does not belong in the same sentence as the crashes of 1929 or 2008. Economic crashes under modern industrialist-capitalism have been much less negative than crashes under other systems. It is true that class warfare in any direction leads to social instability and discontentment. Everyone should feel that the basic resources they need to survive are attainable. I think that most successful societies, have, for the most part, had that covered.
  - hueving 10y ago
    The 2008 crash was pathetic compared to 1929, it wasn't even called a depression. There was higher unemployment and people pushed out of home ownership, but it's not like anything significant changed as a result and the economy is doing well again. 1929 is likewise pathetic compared to the french revolution. There was no large government structure or leadership change as a result.

anigbrowl 10y ago

I'll be glad to explain, but could you first step onto this patch of soft rhetorical ground so I can attack your argument for its lack of rigor? Thanks!

atemerev 10y ago
Sure. You speak of "naturalistic fallacy" — that "natural" order of things is not necessarily good. I agree. With this in mind, I would like to know what is your definition of "good" is. Utilitarianism?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Moral idealism, in the sense of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism is a very attractive philosophy; of course I would love to do the greatest good for the greatest number. But I am not omniscient: not only is my understanding of future consequences limited, perhaps inherently, but so is my insight into what is good for other people. I can't give you a general definition of what is good. In matters of interpersonal relations or politics I'm in favor equitable rather than equal outcomes; one could invert the standard utilitarian definition to being the least harm for the smallest number, which (imho) has considerably different implications for decision-making. Most people would classify this as a form of socialism and I'd be OK with that, but I mean it in the sense of a moral socialism than an operational or economic socialism with the connotations of central planning and so forth, which I reject. Personally, I'm mystic and artistic, and adhere to an eccentric esotericism. I apologize for the frustrations that must result.