3 ms·

That's what I meant, trying to figure it out what's luck and whats isn't is impossible, as you put it > all entirely luck to the core But now how can you, or

• adjkant 9y ago
  To your examples, I think your interpretation of inequality is a misconception people have on many sides (politically speaking) that perverts the definition, or rather misuses and does not consider justice within the context of equality. Obviously, your SO not directly sharing her wealth with others seems just, at least with the minimal details presented. But this implies that there is something that is fair. How do we determine that? You also bake in within your language a level of assigned responsibility to your SO's siblings. > "But now how can you, or anyone else have a say in what is equal?" I'd argue we all do. It's a philosophical question that may very well have an empirical answer. Perhaps a subjective one. Perhaps many subjective ones that share common traits. But the properties of equality in reference to fairness / justice are important things. The problem is we're still sorting out those properties, if any exist. --------------------------------------- With all that said, I would highly recommend reading some Rawls and playing around with his ideas. I think he presents some really interesting approaches to the problem. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, there is much progress made there in his work I think. While many attempts to correct the randomness (unfairness) of life can indeed make it worse, there are things that can work, and we shouldn't give up the pursuit entirely. There is such a thing as degrees of fairness, and for every problem nature's degree of fairness is just that - random. Some we can't realistically expect to beat, and others are things I would argue we should focus on. While I don't want the definition of fairness to be a focus of the post, I do think time spent there is well worth it generally. This post is more getting at why the definition is important though, as "what is fairness" is a huge can of worms.
  • pedro_hab 9y ago
    Yes, it's a complex matter, I do not think I know the answers and I'm curious on what the future holds. And I might read more into it. My gut says we have seen what works, I'd argue that freedom has shown as the best approach to poverty, the only approach I personally have seen so far (keep in mind I am not a researcher in this). "Socialist" ideas have been tried and even when it "works" it's not clear that it did. Where freedom (read capitalism) is crystal clear (like it or not). Whatever degree of freedom is given to socialist/communist societies we clearly see improvements. (off tangent much, sry) But to be concrete, every wealthy country I know of used freedom to get where it is. I'm from Brazil, I see how these inequality ideas are sold there, how wealth distribution is holding us back. Enabling people to do what they want is proven to work, allow them to enjoy the spoils of it is proven too, some things will look unfair, that's the way nature is. Putting our fate in the hands of other is not an idea I see of value, the state is controlled by people, and these people are, like ourselves deeply flawed.
    • adjkant 9y ago
      The problem with "freedom" as the strategy is that it calls into question where one exactly has the autonomy to really make a difference. In the US, the cycle of poverty is clear to many, and thus certain types of equality seem needed. The homelessness problems of most major US cities is a big thing even still often ignored. > "Socialist" ideas have been tried and even when it "works" it's not clear that it did. Where freedom (read capitalism) is crystal clear (like it or not). I think capitalism is often just as muddy as socialism and communism when it comes to judging results. I have noticed that generally, my friends from South America are much more capitalist than I am, which I suspect is a bit of us all seeing the flaws in what we see closest. I'm am somewhat capitalist, but I would best like something highly regulated with actually functioning basic levels of humanity such as basic housing, health care, and perhaps in the far future some form of UBI. I think the key to any successful UBI is to avoid the explicit taxation for redistribution, something that removes that motivator of capitalism, which would need to be kept in place. What capitalism does indeed get right is the motivating part. However, capitalism cannot mediate between many other injustices and usually exacerbates problems. It also relies on proper (or at least close) alignment between what is profitable and what is good for society. More or less, I would side with the following statement: Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other ones. People always view Marx as the antithesis to capitalism, but I'd consider this (via Wikipedia for saving time): "Despite Marx's stress on critique of capitalism and discussion of the new communist society that should replace it, his explicit critique of capitalism is guarded, as he saw it as an improved society compared to the past ones." > But to be concrete, every wealthy country I know of used freedom to get where it is. I think it's easy to say that looking at the current configuration, but history tells a much different story. I would argue wealth of most developed nations can be traced back to exploitation of others, and the governance model may have less effect than you think. If anything, I would argue that a country founded and funded on the exploitation of others being capitalist is only logical. It's a question of causation, not correlation. I would say that it's very well possible that the method of wealth acquisition lends itself to countries who prefer capitalism. PS: Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate when good comments threads develop here in good spirit. Despite my often direct critiques of posts, it's not meant in a mean-spirited manner, just an academic argument type one.