3 ms·
yeah - people who provide services become successful. It's a pretty good system as long as we can keep the less successful people out of poverty. Equality of ou
by beaconstudios 9y ago
yeah - people who provide services become successful. It's a pretty good system as long as we can keep the less successful people out of poverty. Equality of outcome is possibly the worst idea in history.
- sp332 9y agoBut we're not keeping them out of poverty. Facebook has a homeless encampment directly across the street. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/31/facebook-campus-homeless-tent-city-menlo-park-california https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/31/facebook-cam... Are you in favor of any kind of equality?
- beaconstudios 9y agoof course - equality under the law. People like to act like equality of outcome is a natural extension from legal equality but it simply isn't. I know we don't keep people out of poverty right now, and that's something that needs to be fixed. But if you think equality of outcome (i.e. eliminating economic disparity) is the solution to that then you may want to read up on the USSR and Maoist China. Capitalism is pretty good at raising the living standard of the whole population, even if it does end up creating billionaires at the same time.
- sp332 9y agoI'm in favor of democracy. I think the government should represent each person's interests equally no matter how rich they are. I think the only reason we didn't have a violent worker's revolution in America is that we were able to pass the socialist platform democratically.
- beaconstudios 9y agowelfare existed long before socialism and is pretty distinct. Systems of welfare were passed democratically, as they should be. The main reason the West in general didn't have any worker's revolutions (excluding Spain) is that the capitalism+welfare situation we have actually works really well.