4 ms·

Yes. Just the same as generational wealth in the real world. The problem with meritocracy is that ocracy implies some power over the system and in a true merito

Yes. Just the same as generational wealth in the real world. The problem with meritocracy is that ocracy implies some power over the system and in a true meritocratic system the first generation would corrupt it to help their kids. Meritocracy is an oxymoron because the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is a gradient, not a line.

infinity0 9y ago
Doesn't the Law of Large Numbers imply that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are one and the same thing? Or to put it another way, how do you measure "equality of opportunity" if not by "equality of outcome"? If your theory of "equality of opportunity" differs from the measured "equality of outcome", doesn't that automatically mean you've omitted some characteristic of the real world from your theory?
- nhaehnle 9y ago
  A lottery has equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. Many aspects of our societies have lottery-like qualities.
  - infinity0 9y ago
    That's why I mentioned the law of large numbers. But I see your argument - you're arguing that the variance in the probability distribution representing "opportunity" is so great that the measured outcome could be anything. But this seems like "too convenient" an explanation to me, it could be used to justify literally any system. For any system, one could assert that actually the opportunity is equal, but the variance is so great that the measured outcome "accidentally" arose out of the totally-equal-honest "opportunity" probability distribution. I'm not prepared to accept such weak justifications of any supposed equal-opportunity system, I'd prefer to have a system where the outcome provided me with some verifiable indicator that the original opportunities were actually equal, in a similar sort of way where one can have verifiable proofs in cryptographic protocols.
mycall 9y ago
Even if you create a popular/useful coin based on a *cratic system (e.g. iron workers get X number of coins) and try to evenly distribute the coins, they will cluster over time to people to game the system. Perhaps some game detection could penalize those folks and rebalance the distribution.
- nhaehnle 9y ago
  > Perhaps some game detection could penalize those folks and rebalance the distribution. That is indeed a large part of the point of the social/welfare state.

infinity0 9y ago

Doesn't the Law of Large Numbers imply that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are one and the same thing? Or to put it another way, how do you measure "equality of opportunity" if not by "equality of outcome"? If your theory of "equality of opportunity" differs from the measured "equality of outcome", doesn't that automatically mean you've omitted some characteristic of the real world from your theory?

nhaehnle 9y ago
A lottery has equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. Many aspects of our societies have lottery-like qualities.
- infinity0 9y ago
  That's why I mentioned the law of large numbers. But I see your argument - you're arguing that the variance in the probability distribution representing "opportunity" is so great that the measured outcome could be anything. But this seems like "too convenient" an explanation to me, it could be used to justify literally any system. For any system, one could assert that actually the opportunity is equal, but the variance is so great that the measured outcome "accidentally" arose out of the totally-equal-honest "opportunity" probability distribution. I'm not prepared to accept such weak justifications of any supposed equal-opportunity system, I'd prefer to have a system where the outcome provided me with some verifiable indicator that the original opportunities were actually equal, in a similar sort of way where one can have verifiable proofs in cryptographic protocols.

mycall 9y ago

Even if you create a popular/useful coin based on a *cratic system (e.g. iron workers get X number of coins) and try to evenly distribute the coins, they will cluster over time to people to game the system. Perhaps some game detection could penalize those folks and rebalance the distribution.

nhaehnle 9y ago
> Perhaps some game detection could penalize those folks and rebalance the distribution. That is indeed a large part of the point of the social/welfare state.