4 ms·

What's intrinsically wrong with inequality?

andrepd 9y ago
Plenty. Inequality of power, inequality of influence, inequality of opportunities, inequality of access to education, housing, healthcare. All of that is wrong, and can be corrected.
- nybble41 9y ago
  The topic was inequality of wealth and/or income. What is intrinsically wrong with that? People make different choices and end up with different outcomes. This is perfectly natural; making choices and dealing with their consequences is a fundamental part of being human. The only way you'd be able to guarantee either equal income or equal wealth would be to take away people's ability to make meaningful choices with regard to their own lives.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    The playing field is not equal, therefore you cannot speak of outcomes as being a function of choices. If people start a foot race, some 10m from the finish, some on the other end of the stadium, first you have to make everyone start with the same opportunities, then you can talk about merit.
    - nybble41 9y ago
      The playing field is not equal, therefore you cannot speak of outcomes as being a function of choices. When did I ever say that outcomes were a function only of one's own choices? Outcomes are determined by both choices and other factors. Some of those other factors are pure chance; most (including inheritance) are the result of other people's choices. Forcing equality of opportunity has all the same problems as forcing equality of wealth or income—you can't do it without eliminating choice. Since you brought it up, merit is a function of what you do with the opportunities at your disposal. One who achieves a little with limited opportunities shows just as much merit as one who achieves much with more significant opportunities. Instead of an individual foot race, perhaps it would be more instructive to look at life as a relay. Each participant does what they can before passing the baton to the next member of their team (the next generation). In the beginning every team started from the same position (bare subsistence). It would be wrong to judge the fairness of the race based on individual starting positions; you have to consider the cumulative efforts of the entire team. (Always keeping in mind, of course, that life is not a sport, so the value of such analogies is necessarily limited.)
- vixen99 9y ago
  All reasonable people are for equality of opportunity but no one can legislate for equality of outcome and that is something that tends to promote a return to the items on your list.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    > but no one can legislate for equality of outcome... Actually, we can. We can ensure that even if your gamble goes very very wrong, then there is a base living standard that will be provided for you. We're not talking about eliminating inequality, merely limiting the bounds. So people who make a bad gamble don't end up living in squabbles. This enables both slackers and risk takers. I would argue we need to find the balance where society works, keeps making progress, and people don't go homeless, etc..
jopsen 9y ago
I would rather distribute the spoils human progress to maximize human happiness. Sure, some inequality might be needed to incentivize progress, and I'm not arguing for perfect equality either. What purpose does grotesque inequality serve?

Plenty. Inequality of power, inequality of influence, inequality of opportunities, inequality of access to education, housing, healthcare. All of that is wrong, and can be corrected.

nybble41 9y ago
The topic was inequality of wealth and/or income. What is intrinsically wrong with that? People make different choices and end up with different outcomes. This is perfectly natural; making choices and dealing with their consequences is a fundamental part of being human. The only way you'd be able to guarantee either equal income or equal wealth would be to take away people's ability to make meaningful choices with regard to their own lives.
- andrepd 9y ago
  The playing field is not equal, therefore you cannot speak of outcomes as being a function of choices. If people start a foot race, some 10m from the finish, some on the other end of the stadium, first you have to make everyone start with the same opportunities, then you can talk about merit.
  - nybble41 9y ago
    The playing field is not equal, therefore you cannot speak of outcomes as being a function of choices. When did I ever say that outcomes were a function only of one's own choices? Outcomes are determined by both choices and other factors. Some of those other factors are pure chance; most (including inheritance) are the result of other people's choices. Forcing equality of opportunity has all the same problems as forcing equality of wealth or income—you can't do it without eliminating choice. Since you brought it up, merit is a function of what you do with the opportunities at your disposal. One who achieves a little with limited opportunities shows just as much merit as one who achieves much with more significant opportunities. Instead of an individual foot race, perhaps it would be more instructive to look at life as a relay. Each participant does what they can before passing the baton to the next member of their team (the next generation). In the beginning every team started from the same position (bare subsistence). It would be wrong to judge the fairness of the race based on individual starting positions; you have to consider the cumulative efforts of the entire team. (Always keeping in mind, of course, that life is not a sport, so the value of such analogies is necessarily limited.)
vixen99 9y ago
All reasonable people are for equality of opportunity but no one can legislate for equality of outcome and that is something that tends to promote a return to the items on your list.
- jopsen 9y ago
  > but no one can legislate for equality of outcome... Actually, we can. We can ensure that even if your gamble goes very very wrong, then there is a base living standard that will be provided for you. We're not talking about eliminating inequality, merely limiting the bounds. So people who make a bad gamble don't end up living in squabbles. This enables both slackers and risk takers. I would argue we need to find the balance where society works, keeps making progress, and people don't go homeless, etc..

jopsen 9y ago

I would rather distribute the spoils human progress to maximize human happiness. Sure, some inequality might be needed to incentivize progress, and I'm not arguing for perfect equality either. What purpose does grotesque inequality serve?