4 ms·

> "Why do I care if the 1% are working or rentiers?" Because fairness matters. We are social beings and our well-being is connected to the nature of our relati

> "Why do I care if the 1% are working or rentiers?" Because fairness matters. We are social beings and our well-being is connected to the nature of our relationships and the fairness of our society. Once basic needs are met, most people would choose a poorer but fairer and more loving community than a society richer through cold utilitarianism. Many if not most people who choose the opposite aren't really happy. And there are a host of other problems with such inequality. For example, democracy is undermined (money is power), and the idea of a meritocracy is likewise belied: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15865876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15865876 (see my 9-point sub-answer).

heymijo 9y ago
Hello eevilspock. Fairness seems to be the driving point behind your comment here and your linked 9-point sub-answer about the idea of a meritocracy. I read your comment here two ways: 1. Being a rentier is more unfair than not. and/or 2. Accumulated wealth beyond that needed to meet basic needs is unfair (whether acquired via rent or not). ^This is me parsing your comment to hopefully reply to the point(s) you wanted to make. If I misinterpreted, please correct me. On the merits of, I think there is a great deal of agreement and overlap between what you wrote and this line that I wrote about there being inequality of income/opportunity/meaning between the 1% (whether rentiers or not) and the 99%.
- eevilspock 9y ago
  Yes, I believe we are likely in agreement :) Though what I'd say about "accumulated wealth" isn't exactly as you put it. If there are two people of equal means, and one chooses to work all summer growing and storing tasty food for the winter, and the other chooses to play all summer and survive off of tubers all winter, this is fair. This is freedom of choice. But this sort of fair difference accounts for only a small fraction of the difference in income and wealth in our world today. The authors of the OP also have similar concerns, once you read past the first few paragraphs.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
"...Once basic needs are met, most people would choose a poorer but fairer and more loving community than a society richer through cold utilitarianism. Many if not most people who choose the opposite aren't really happy..." Original commenter here - But I don't see how this is at all true when current reality, if not history, tells us the exact opposite. For for democracy being undermined. Well, this is a language problem we keep making. That is, if it has been undermined to that extent then it is no longer a democracy. I'd add that it might not have been one in the first place. That is, something inappropriate must have allowed the undermining.

heymijo 9y ago

Hello eevilspock. Fairness seems to be the driving point behind your comment here and your linked 9-point sub-answer about the idea of a meritocracy. I read your comment here two ways: 1. Being a rentier is more unfair than not. and/or 2. Accumulated wealth beyond that needed to meet basic needs is unfair (whether acquired via rent or not). ^This is me parsing your comment to hopefully reply to the point(s) you wanted to make. If I misinterpreted, please correct me. On the merits of, I think there is a great deal of agreement and overlap between what you wrote and this line that I wrote about there being inequality of income/opportunity/meaning between the 1% (whether rentiers or not) and the 99%.

eevilspock 9y ago
Yes, I believe we are likely in agreement :) Though what I'd say about "accumulated wealth" isn't exactly as you put it. If there are two people of equal means, and one chooses to work all summer growing and storing tasty food for the winter, and the other chooses to play all summer and survive off of tubers all winter, this is fair. This is freedom of choice. But this sort of fair difference accounts for only a small fraction of the difference in income and wealth in our world today. The authors of the OP also have similar concerns, once you read past the first few paragraphs.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

"...Once basic needs are met, most people would choose a poorer but fairer and more loving community than a society richer through cold utilitarianism. Many if not most people who choose the opposite aren't really happy..." Original commenter here - But I don't see how this is at all true when current reality, if not history, tells us the exact opposite. For for democracy being undermined. Well, this is a language problem we keep making. That is, if it has been undermined to that extent then it is no longer a democracy. I'd add that it might not have been one in the first place. That is, something inappropriate must have allowed the undermining.