4 ms·

Fair: an equitable distribution of resources and burdens according to community values and beliefs It's not rocket science. We (humans) use it every day. It's

by ethbro 9y ago

Fair: an equitable distribution of resources and burdens according to community values and beliefs It's not rocket science. We (humans) use it every day. It's just contextually and subjectively defined by group consensus.

dmitrygr 9y ago
Who in the "community" decides which burdens are equitable to which others? Consensus between whom? Shall we have a 100% democratic vote where every citizen participates to decide the new regulatory burden on these companies? What's the average between "leave them alone," "tax them more," "dismantle them," and "hang the founders as an example to others"? I've seen all these options voiced here. Since you do this "every day," please help me understand how to average those "fairly"
- electricEmu 9y ago
  Your question is one very close with bike shedding. I'm unsure why you would want to bring up the subject, having offered no solutions yourself. Your comment history suggests you have the answer to the question already or the ability to seek it quickly Should you wish to continue these lines of questioning then I suggest you author and submit an article. Your line of questioning would both fit better and garner better responses in a thread if its own.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    What's wrong with asking someone to clarify their claim?
    - electricEmu 9y ago
      I asked for specifics and the OP clarified with specifics by editing their comment. My comment will stand as-is to reflect the original posting. Why would you ask if the point of view is upsetting, then drastically rephrase your comment to "clarification"? Changing your comment that drastically is quite disingenuous. The original better demonstrated intent, which was to demean, not clarify.
- wz1000 9y ago
  The community has always decided the wealth distribution in society. It is not some "invisible hand" that controls it. The wealth distribution, as it exists today, is a result of purposeful decisions starting all the way at the Enclosure of the Commons. The tax code, legal system, concept of property(intellectual and otherwise) etc. are not the result of inevitable market forces ordained by a higher power, they are carefully designed. If the "community" set up these systems(on which these companies are parasitic on), they can change them in a way that benefits the community at large.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    The "community" == revolving door lobbyists, right? Or am I reading too much into your comment. The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. As an outsider, it's fascinating to watch the process unfold. The current drum that's being beat by the media is tax-reform. Is this really the most pressing issue? Is the need for reform a given as the media suggests without question (right or left), or are there marching orders from the conglomerate overlords to push for a lucrative agenda?
    - wz1000 9y ago
      Yes, decision making power has been hijacked from the population at large and put into the hands of a few. But the point I was trying to make was that these are still just decisions made by somebody, decisions that can change(or be forced to change). They are not the result of some inevitable process that it is foolish to try to change, as is often claimed by proponents of "free" markets etc. There is no "natural" distribution of wealth and resources that will be undermined by redistribution, because the current distribution of wealth is itself the result of hundreds of years of redistribution, from the commons into private hands, from the third world into the first, and from the disenfranchised to the wealthy.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      > The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. I think sometimes there's a commingling of "the system is complex" and "an individual is powerless" in recent political narratives, to the detriment of hope. The "system" (by which I mean elected politicians, lobbyists, campaign contributions, the Illuminati, etc) is ultimately grounded in popular will. Clinton lost because people were upset. I'm not denying regulatory capture, revolving door lobbying, and corporate interests aren't part of the system. But you know what else is? Local primaries. Local executive officials (school board, mayor, etc). Visiting your congressperson and framing your issues in a way that speaks to them. Making campaign contributions. I think it's too easy to nihilistically say "the game is hard, therefore I'm not going to play." Bullshit. The democracy game is as it has always been (and a helluva lot less corrupt now than in previous centuries). But all that's required for evil to triumph is that good people don't engage.

by ethbro 9y ago

dmitrygr 9y ago

Who in the "community" decides which burdens are equitable to which others? Consensus between whom? Shall we have a 100% democratic vote where every citizen participates to decide the new regulatory burden on these companies? What's the average between "leave them alone," "tax them more," "dismantle them," and "hang the founders as an example to others"? I've seen all these options voiced here. Since you do this "every day," please help me understand how to average those "fairly"

electricEmu 9y ago
Your question is one very close with bike shedding. I'm unsure why you would want to bring up the subject, having offered no solutions yourself. Your comment history suggests you have the answer to the question already or the ability to seek it quickly Should you wish to continue these lines of questioning then I suggest you author and submit an article. Your line of questioning would both fit better and garner better responses in a thread if its own.
- cgmg 9y ago
  What's wrong with asking someone to clarify their claim?
  - electricEmu 9y ago
    I asked for specifics and the OP clarified with specifics by editing their comment. My comment will stand as-is to reflect the original posting. Why would you ask if the point of view is upsetting, then drastically rephrase your comment to "clarification"? Changing your comment that drastically is quite disingenuous. The original better demonstrated intent, which was to demean, not clarify.
wz1000 9y ago
The community has always decided the wealth distribution in society. It is not some "invisible hand" that controls it. The wealth distribution, as it exists today, is a result of purposeful decisions starting all the way at the Enclosure of the Commons. The tax code, legal system, concept of property(intellectual and otherwise) etc. are not the result of inevitable market forces ordained by a higher power, they are carefully designed. If the "community" set up these systems(on which these companies are parasitic on), they can change them in a way that benefits the community at large.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  The "community" == revolving door lobbyists, right? Or am I reading too much into your comment. The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. As an outsider, it's fascinating to watch the process unfold. The current drum that's being beat by the media is tax-reform. Is this really the most pressing issue? Is the need for reform a given as the media suggests without question (right or left), or are there marching orders from the conglomerate overlords to push for a lucrative agenda?
  - wz1000 9y ago
    Yes, decision making power has been hijacked from the population at large and put into the hands of a few. But the point I was trying to make was that these are still just decisions made by somebody, decisions that can change(or be forced to change). They are not the result of some inevitable process that it is foolish to try to change, as is often claimed by proponents of "free" markets etc. There is no "natural" distribution of wealth and resources that will be undermined by redistribution, because the current distribution of wealth is itself the result of hundreds of years of redistribution, from the commons into private hands, from the third world into the first, and from the disenfranchised to the wealthy.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > The average citizen has little say in the rules the so-called "community" designs. I think sometimes there's a commingling of "the system is complex" and "an individual is powerless" in recent political narratives, to the detriment of hope. The "system" (by which I mean elected politicians, lobbyists, campaign contributions, the Illuminati, etc) is ultimately grounded in popular will. Clinton lost because people were upset. I'm not denying regulatory capture, revolving door lobbying, and corporate interests aren't part of the system. But you know what else is? Local primaries. Local executive officials (school board, mayor, etc). Visiting your congressperson and framing your issues in a way that speaks to them. Making campaign contributions. I think it's too easy to nihilistically say "the game is hard, therefore I'm not going to play." Bullshit. The democracy game is as it has always been (and a helluva lot less corrupt now than in previous centuries). But all that's required for evil to triumph is that good people don't engage.