3 ms·
In broad strokes, purely considering survivalism or hedonism, sure. From the perspective of what's moral and what's not, you start seeing less differences betwe
by aylmao 7y ago
In broad strokes, purely considering survivalism or hedonism, sure. From the perspective of what's moral and what's not, you start seeing less differences between old inequality and "new" inequality.
And from the perspective or liberties, power and control, today's inequality seems perhaps even worse, as all these luxuries raise the question of wether change is actually inevitable, or we're reaching a point at which people won't care.
- yters 7y agoWhat if the inequality we see today is a symptom of rising wealth across the board? If there is more wealth to go around, there is more chance a large portion of it gets into the hands of a few, due to the unequal distribution of talents.
- dictum 7y agoTalent isn't inherited, money is. Inheritance usually starts from birth, as children are raised on their parents' money, so they get superb schooling, opportunities to fail and learn, and entry to reserved clubs/credentials/connections, which can be mistaken for talent. (And for a nontrivial number of fields, talent is knowing the language of its business, more than creative output)
- yters 7y agoThat is not contrary to what I'm saying.