32 ms·
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 y
by 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 agoYes, 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.