5 ms·

Isn't this assuming ending the class divide is something we should be aiming to achieve? Where is the case that the cost of doing this is less than the benefit?

sintaxi 8y ago
That's a great point. This article assumes that eliminating class divide is a worthwhile pursuit without first evaluating the costs of such an endeavor.
jacknews 8y ago
define benefit. It's a bit like saying "It's too expensive to have 12-man juries, etc, so we should just stick with mob justice" or "This democracy thing is all a big hassle, we'll stick with divinely instituted monarchy"
- danieltillett 8y ago
  No it is more like why have 12 person juries when 8 might be just as good and cost less. What is the argument that 12 person juries are better than 8? As an aside I was called in for jury duty on a civil case where the jury was only 4 people. Of course because the legal system doesn't care about wasting everyone's time there were 50 of us there hanging around all day while the lawyers argued with each other. At 3.30pm the 4 jurors were chosen and the rest of us finally sent home.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    > What is the argument that 12 person juries are better than 8? 150% more opinions? > wasting everyone's time "Investing" would be a better word. There needs to be a large enough pool of people the jury needs to be selected from so that people with obvious biases can be removed from the jury by the lawyers. Some considerations (the "the lawyers argued with each other") need to happen before a jury is selected. Please don't complain there is too much justice going around. I agree the US is an overly litigious society and that resources could be better applied that trying to skin each other alive, but there's a bigger point here. Maybe something could be done to make it a less litigious society.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      On that basis why don't we have 24 person juries? 200% more opinions? Why not 100 person juries? Lawyers aren't trying to remove people with obvious biases, they are trying to find people with obvious biases in favour of their side. Lawyers should have no choice who is on the jury - anyway my complaint was about wasting 50 people's day to just choose 4 people and then not even use them.
  - jacknews 8y ago
    I wasn't arguing about the cost, but the benefit. Your suggestion was that we need to do a cost-benefit analysis, and to decide if "ending the class divide is something we should be aiming to achieve" at all. I don't think you can do a cost-benefit analysis of "freedom" for example, what would that even mean? Sure, try to get it cheaply, but the "benefit" should be clear, and invaluable. Is it "beneficial" to reduce class-inequality, as in, simply being born into a particular class gives you a huge advantage/disadvantage? Of course it depends who you ask, and what you are measuring, but I would say it is worthwhile in and of itself, and in the same category as "freedom", "justice" and so on, and that's why I asked "define benefit". Whether the proposed solution would work, or is fair, or is the best/cheapest solution etc, is an entirely different question.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      I was arguing if the aim is even something we should be trying to achieve. The history of attempts to remove class differences have not been good. Of course you can do a cost-benefit analysis on something like freedom. All of society is a balance between freedom and the cost of exercising that freedom.

sintaxi 8y ago

That's a great point. This article assumes that eliminating class divide is a worthwhile pursuit without first evaluating the costs of such an endeavor.

jacknews 8y ago

define benefit. It's a bit like saying "It's too expensive to have 12-man juries, etc, so we should just stick with mob justice" or "This democracy thing is all a big hassle, we'll stick with divinely instituted monarchy"

danieltillett 8y ago
No it is more like why have 12 person juries when 8 might be just as good and cost less. What is the argument that 12 person juries are better than 8? As an aside I was called in for jury duty on a civil case where the jury was only 4 people. Of course because the legal system doesn't care about wasting everyone's time there were 50 of us there hanging around all day while the lawyers argued with each other. At 3.30pm the 4 jurors were chosen and the rest of us finally sent home.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  > What is the argument that 12 person juries are better than 8? 150% more opinions? > wasting everyone's time "Investing" would be a better word. There needs to be a large enough pool of people the jury needs to be selected from so that people with obvious biases can be removed from the jury by the lawyers. Some considerations (the "the lawyers argued with each other") need to happen before a jury is selected. Please don't complain there is too much justice going around. I agree the US is an overly litigious society and that resources could be better applied that trying to skin each other alive, but there's a bigger point here. Maybe something could be done to make it a less litigious society.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    On that basis why don't we have 24 person juries? 200% more opinions? Why not 100 person juries? Lawyers aren't trying to remove people with obvious biases, they are trying to find people with obvious biases in favour of their side. Lawyers should have no choice who is on the jury - anyway my complaint was about wasting 50 people's day to just choose 4 people and then not even use them.
- jacknews 8y ago
  I wasn't arguing about the cost, but the benefit. Your suggestion was that we need to do a cost-benefit analysis, and to decide if "ending the class divide is something we should be aiming to achieve" at all. I don't think you can do a cost-benefit analysis of "freedom" for example, what would that even mean? Sure, try to get it cheaply, but the "benefit" should be clear, and invaluable. Is it "beneficial" to reduce class-inequality, as in, simply being born into a particular class gives you a huge advantage/disadvantage? Of course it depends who you ask, and what you are measuring, but I would say it is worthwhile in and of itself, and in the same category as "freedom", "justice" and so on, and that's why I asked "define benefit". Whether the proposed solution would work, or is fair, or is the best/cheapest solution etc, is an entirely different question.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    I was arguing if the aim is even something we should be trying to achieve. The history of attempts to remove class differences have not been good. Of course you can do a cost-benefit analysis on something like freedom. All of society is a balance between freedom and the cost of exercising that freedom.