5 ms·

I just don't understand how inequality can be truly eliminated in a world where people are motivated by money and power. Until you can build a society where peo

by umvi 8y ago

I just don't understand how inequality can be truly eliminated in a world where people are motivated by money and power. Until you can build a society where people actually love and care for each other instead of themselves, a certain percentage of the population will always try to become more equal than the others. And, they will become more equal than the others, just like the pigs in Animal Farm, because once you have power, you can change any rules.

strikelaserclaw 8y ago
I don't think the goal is to build an "equal" society, which god knows will never work because people are just so different. I think the ideal goal is to build a society which even the lowest members of society have their basic needs met, a meal, a roof, health care.
- arez 8y ago
  you just described the system of the scandinavian countries
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I would go one step further and say that all levels of society should benefit on average equally from growth. It's ok that higher incomes get a larger share but that share shouldn't be growing disproportionately as it has done over the last decades.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  This is correct; this is even what the socialists argued for[0] and at least according to SEP[1] there is only one identifiable proposal of a "perfect" equality (as some in this thread have taken it to be) in the history of philosophy. The confusion over what [in]equality means and what can or should be reduced is a sticking point in a lot of political debates. [0] "When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability. [...] It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals." - V.I. Lenin, "A Liberal Professor on Equality" (1914) [1] "Simple equality, meaning everyone being furnished with the same material level of goods and services, represents a strict position as far as distributive justice is concerned. It is generally rejected as untenable. Hence with the possible exception of Barbeuf (1796), no prominent author or movement has demanded strict equality."
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
You clearly can because some countries do much better than others. The trick is to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water.
tomp 8y ago
No, it won't work. You get inequality even in money-less societies. E.g. most people use Instagram not for money, but they still compete, and feel good/bad due to inequality - they compete for likes, followers, photo quality, ... - in other words, status. It's deep in the human psyche. I don't think we can escape it.
- moate 8y ago
  I think most of us taking up this fight are perfectly fine with people fighting for status and visibility if there aren't children dying of curable diseases and homeless people dying in the streets.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > there aren't children dying of curable diseases and homeless people dying in the streets Then that should be the goal, not eliminating inequality. At least, that's my goal - I see more downsides than upsides from eliminating inequality altogether (e.g. the downfall of communism, no Elon Musk, etc)
vanderZwan 8y ago
There's a ton of prisoner's dilemma-inspired research into this that has many types of answers to this question. Not perfect answers (perfect equality is not attainable), but interesting options still. For example, as soon as you have a system that allows for punishing each other, then people turn out to be willing to punish cheaters even at their own expense. And the addition of that to group dynamics tends to make it self-stabilizing. If many in the group can chip in to gravely punish a cheater at a small cost to themselves, the group can become quite stable and egalitarian. But I can also see how that can be stifling and oppressive-by-majority (think small-minded villages).
ishjoh 8y ago
This reminds me of a quote by the historian Will Durant. "Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies."
- kragacles 8y ago
  Created an account just to thank you for the post; one of my favorite Will Durant quotes. And so true.
simonh 8y ago
The thing is it's not just money and power that motivate inequality, it's freedom. In a truly free society, some people will turn out to be particularly talented, or motivated, or hard working, or lucky and will end up benefiting from those things. Other people will choose to do things of limited or no economic benefit, or choose or only show any ability at undemanding jobs, or be the victims of illness, accidents or other obstacles. Then there's always a few people who are criminal, or will cheat the system. The thing is we do need to encourage people to want to work hard, find something they are talented at and do jobs that have large economic returns for themselves and society. We all benefit from this. People who work hard, take risks, build business, employ lots of people and provide valuable goods and services to their customers deserve to be well compensated. If they are to grow their business and employ people, how are they going to do that if they are not well compensated? I do believe in a fair and progressive society. I live in the Uk and I think on balance we get this about right. We have a functioning social safety net, including a world class health service that's free at the point of use. We have a decent education system that's free for all up to secondary level. I wish we had free university education, but that would be tough to find the funds for. Yet we also have a dynamic and productive economy that funds all of that. The thing is you can't have the social safety net and free health and education without a well functioning economy. The resources have to come from somewhere. It's not perfect by a long shot, but not everyone that is wealthy got there by cheating.
- mberning 8y ago
  One of the few quality comments in this thread. Thank you.
  - throwaway1984b 8y ago
    I agree. I'd like to clarify my reply to the GP is only with regard to the UK not really being fair and progressive to all who are in its society. With regard to the other items, about the importance of reward and economy, etc., I agree.
- throwaway1984b 8y ago
  I live in the UK too, and sadly I must disagree that we have a fair and progressive society or a functional social safety net at the moment. There are a great many people outside the system, for whom the system doesn't function. Many different groups. Abandoned elderly. Abandoned young people leaving care. But I'll talk about just one of the groups for whom the safety net is failing - migrants. There is a large cohort of people who are long-term denied access to NHS care ("right to healthcare" is a boolean flag in a database), denied lawful access to housing ("right to rent anywhere" is a boolean flag in a database), cannot claim any government benefits ("recourse to public funds" is a boolean flag in a database), and cannot work -- absurdly, not even volunteer work -- and so, perversely, cannot pay tax. Try imagining how it feels to have an easily cured, but terminal if untreated disease in that scenario. And try to imagine what happens if you are pregnant or break a leg. Yes, pregnant people avoid hospital in the UK for fear of discovery and forced break-up of their existing family. Try imagining being dependent on friends to provide food and a place to sleep. Because no housing agency will rent to you, and you have no money, and no matter what your skills, you're not allowed to use them. Try imagining getting your healthcare from secret places, run by doctors who do it on the side, and it has to stay out of your medical records, Try imagining every business you start has to be an illegal business, no matter how innocent it is. Try imagining everything you make, everything you build, everything you own, and everyone you know and care about including your own family, could be separated permanently from you in a midnight raid at any time. Yes, families are permanently broken up in midnight raids. Try imagining your mental health, and try imagining that you daren't speak to any therapists about what's really happening in your life. And try imagining, you have done everything by the book. You are innocent. Every application, every fee, every bit of paperwork, every bit of evidence. You're married, you've been here for 30 years, you have a connection to the UK, you've paid £x0,000+ in fees, you've been bounced around the system for years or in some cases decades in this state. But the system rejects you, or keeps you in limbo, for reasons lawyers can't explain, civil servants don't explain, and judges overturn - if you're lucky enough to afford to get in front of one. You are innocent, but screwed. I know people in that kind of situation. Because of those circumstances, they rely on friends to provide all their food and accommodation, they can't use basic services to look after themselves, they are permanently scared of losing everything, and they daren't speak to almost anyone about it. Those are the lucky ones - they have friends who will do that, for years, at personal cost to themselves. I have a lot of admiration for friends who will do that. And they do it secretly. You might know someone, without knowing. It's a big strain on everyone, and it certainly isn't a functioning social safety net. I don't regard it as a fair and progressive society if it's "more fair to some than others", to paraphrase Orwell. The worst part, for me? That so many people of the UK seem to celebrate this. They want more of it. There is an unpleasant "I've got mine, and they deserve it" attitude all over the place. Certainly not everyone is like that. But too many are. Lead, perhaps, by the current PM, who was chief architect of much of the hostile environment (it hasn't always been like this in the UK, it got much worse), and continues to encourage it.
thinkingemote 8y ago
One thought experiment is to think that people are motivated by love and empathy to their family and neighbors and future generations and it's this very thing which leads to war and power and inequality. People are motivated to succeed for their family and society not for power and money on its own. They want their sons and daughters and their family and their family's family to also do well. The manic evil tycoon is a fairy tale. Now I think Marxism or communism also agreed that people were motivated by love for their family and society so they sought to get rid of the family. more Brave New World than Animal Farm.

by umvi 8y ago

strikelaserclaw 8y ago

I don't think the goal is to build an "equal" society, which god knows will never work because people are just so different. I think the ideal goal is to build a society which even the lowest members of society have their basic needs met, a meal, a roof, health care.

arez 8y ago
you just described the system of the scandinavian countries
maxxxxx 8y ago
I would go one step further and say that all levels of society should benefit on average equally from growth. It's ok that higher incomes get a larger share but that share shouldn't be growing disproportionately as it has done over the last decades.
claudiawerner 8y ago
This is correct; this is even what the socialists argued for[0] and at least according to SEP[1] there is only one identifiable proposal of a "perfect" equality (as some in this thread have taken it to be) in the history of philosophy. The confusion over what [in]equality means and what can or should be reduced is a sticking point in a lot of political debates. [0] "When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability. [...] It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals." - V.I. Lenin, "A Liberal Professor on Equality" (1914) [1] "Simple equality, meaning everyone being furnished with the same material level of goods and services, represents a strict position as far as distributive justice is concerned. It is generally rejected as untenable. Hence with the possible exception of Barbeuf (1796), no prominent author or movement has demanded strict equality."

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

You clearly can because some countries do much better than others. The trick is to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water.

tomp 8y ago

No, it won't work. You get inequality even in money-less societies. E.g. most people use Instagram not for money, but they still compete, and feel good/bad due to inequality - they compete for likes, followers, photo quality, ... - in other words, status. It's deep in the human psyche. I don't think we can escape it.

moate 8y ago
I think most of us taking up this fight are perfectly fine with people fighting for status and visibility if there aren't children dying of curable diseases and homeless people dying in the streets.
- tomp 8y ago
  > there aren't children dying of curable diseases and homeless people dying in the streets Then that should be the goal, not eliminating inequality. At least, that's my goal - I see more downsides than upsides from eliminating inequality altogether (e.g. the downfall of communism, no Elon Musk, etc)

vanderZwan 8y ago

There's a ton of prisoner's dilemma-inspired research into this that has many types of answers to this question. Not perfect answers (perfect equality is not attainable), but interesting options still. For example, as soon as you have a system that allows for punishing each other, then people turn out to be willing to punish cheaters even at their own expense. And the addition of that to group dynamics tends to make it self-stabilizing. If many in the group can chip in to gravely punish a cheater at a small cost to themselves, the group can become quite stable and egalitarian. But I can also see how that can be stifling and oppressive-by-majority (think small-minded villages).

ishjoh 8y ago

This reminds me of a quote by the historian Will Durant. "Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies."

kragacles 8y ago
Created an account just to thank you for the post; one of my favorite Will Durant quotes. And so true.

simonh 8y ago

The thing is it's not just money and power that motivate inequality, it's freedom. In a truly free society, some people will turn out to be particularly talented, or motivated, or hard working, or lucky and will end up benefiting from those things. Other people will choose to do things of limited or no economic benefit, or choose or only show any ability at undemanding jobs, or be the victims of illness, accidents or other obstacles. Then there's always a few people who are criminal, or will cheat the system. The thing is we do need to encourage people to want to work hard, find something they are talented at and do jobs that have large economic returns for themselves and society. We all benefit from this. People who work hard, take risks, build business, employ lots of people and provide valuable goods and services to their customers deserve to be well compensated. If they are to grow their business and employ people, how are they going to do that if they are not well compensated? I do believe in a fair and progressive society. I live in the Uk and I think on balance we get this about right. We have a functioning social safety net, including a world class health service that's free at the point of use. We have a decent education system that's free for all up to secondary level. I wish we had free university education, but that would be tough to find the funds for. Yet we also have a dynamic and productive economy that funds all of that. The thing is you can't have the social safety net and free health and education without a well functioning economy. The resources have to come from somewhere. It's not perfect by a long shot, but not everyone that is wealthy got there by cheating.

mberning 8y ago
One of the few quality comments in this thread. Thank you.
- throwaway1984b 8y ago
  I agree. I'd like to clarify my reply to the GP is only with regard to the UK not really being fair and progressive to all who are in its society. With regard to the other items, about the importance of reward and economy, etc., I agree.
throwaway1984b 8y ago
I live in the UK too, and sadly I must disagree that we have a fair and progressive society or a functional social safety net at the moment. There are a great many people outside the system, for whom the system doesn't function. Many different groups. Abandoned elderly. Abandoned young people leaving care. But I'll talk about just one of the groups for whom the safety net is failing - migrants. There is a large cohort of people who are long-term denied access to NHS care ("right to healthcare" is a boolean flag in a database), denied lawful access to housing ("right to rent anywhere" is a boolean flag in a database), cannot claim any government benefits ("recourse to public funds" is a boolean flag in a database), and cannot work -- absurdly, not even volunteer work -- and so, perversely, cannot pay tax. Try imagining how it feels to have an easily cured, but terminal if untreated disease in that scenario. And try to imagine what happens if you are pregnant or break a leg. Yes, pregnant people avoid hospital in the UK for fear of discovery and forced break-up of their existing family. Try imagining being dependent on friends to provide food and a place to sleep. Because no housing agency will rent to you, and you have no money, and no matter what your skills, you're not allowed to use them. Try imagining getting your healthcare from secret places, run by doctors who do it on the side, and it has to stay out of your medical records, Try imagining every business you start has to be an illegal business, no matter how innocent it is. Try imagining everything you make, everything you build, everything you own, and everyone you know and care about including your own family, could be separated permanently from you in a midnight raid at any time. Yes, families are permanently broken up in midnight raids. Try imagining your mental health, and try imagining that you daren't speak to any therapists about what's really happening in your life. And try imagining, you have done everything by the book. You are innocent. Every application, every fee, every bit of paperwork, every bit of evidence. You're married, you've been here for 30 years, you have a connection to the UK, you've paid £x0,000+ in fees, you've been bounced around the system for years or in some cases decades in this state. But the system rejects you, or keeps you in limbo, for reasons lawyers can't explain, civil servants don't explain, and judges overturn - if you're lucky enough to afford to get in front of one. You are innocent, but screwed. I know people in that kind of situation. Because of those circumstances, they rely on friends to provide all their food and accommodation, they can't use basic services to look after themselves, they are permanently scared of losing everything, and they daren't speak to almost anyone about it. Those are the lucky ones - they have friends who will do that, for years, at personal cost to themselves. I have a lot of admiration for friends who will do that. And they do it secretly. You might know someone, without knowing. It's a big strain on everyone, and it certainly isn't a functioning social safety net. I don't regard it as a fair and progressive society if it's "more fair to some than others", to paraphrase Orwell. The worst part, for me? That so many people of the UK seem to celebrate this. They want more of it. There is an unpleasant "I've got mine, and they deserve it" attitude all over the place. Certainly not everyone is like that. But too many are. Lead, perhaps, by the current PM, who was chief architect of much of the hostile environment (it hasn't always been like this in the UK, it got much worse), and continues to encourage it.

thinkingemote 8y ago

One thought experiment is to think that people are motivated by love and empathy to their family and neighbors and future generations and it's this very thing which leads to war and power and inequality. People are motivated to succeed for their family and society not for power and money on its own. They want their sons and daughters and their family and their family's family to also do well. The manic evil tycoon is a fairy tale. Now I think Marxism or communism also agreed that people were motivated by love for their family and society so they sought to get rid of the family. more Brave New World than Animal Farm.