3 ms·
> Labor and trade are not zero sum. The decision of where the generated dollars go is zero sum. Certainly, my point was that possessing a greater share of weal
by nyxxie 7y ago
> Labor and trade are not zero sum. The decision of where the generated dollars go is zero sum.
Certainly, my point was that possessing a greater share of wealth is not the same as the completely unearned disparity in distribution of common resources in the author's hypothetical scenario. We live in a world of scarcity, so disparity when that scarcity is left up to market forces is to be expected and in fact could even be argued to be earned. This is completely different than this sort of village commune that the author envisions. Nevertheless, the author equates the two to justify her argument, which I believe is fallacious.
> Do you mean they can't 'earn' it in their eyes, or are you agreeing that a certain amount of wealth cannot actually be earned?
The former. This responsibility that the author posits her rich peers have is based on nothing other than her feeling that they didn't earn their position and aren't even using it properly, which will only go away after said peers do something that alleviates this feeling. What is that thing? Only the author knows. Maybe she doesn't even know, she just knows that she wants the rich people to fix it.
> they come nowhere near taking care of that burden on their own.
I don't believe it's fair that they even be under some sort of implied burden. Unless they are criminals, their family earned that wealth playing the same game as everyone else and have chosen to use it to ensure their offspring are comfortable. I see no problem in that.
- Dylan16807 7y agoThe game isn't half as fair as it should be. I see great problem in that. Even though some fraction of the disparity is earned, a lot clearly isn't.
- Invictus0 7y agoThe game was and has never been fair. The parent is merely arguing that you should blame the game, and not the players.
- Dylan16807 7y agoYou can blame the players for not helping other players, and not wanting infrastructure that takes excess resources from the winners to help all players.
- nyxxie 7y ago> You can blame the players for not helping other players Assume we did, what is the correct amount of help that the successful players should help the unsuccessful ones? Unless it's codified into the game itself (being made to pay more taxes based on wealth for example), it's unfair to expect arbitrary players to pay some undefined price to the satisfaction of another arbitrary set of players.
- sagichmal 7y ago> Assume we did, what is the correct amount of help that the successful players should help the unsuccessful ones? Unless it's codified into the game itself (being made to pay more taxes based on wealth for example), it's unfair to expect arbitrary players to pay some undefined price to the satisfaction of another arbitrary set of players. It's completely appropriate and reasonable to answer that question with: I don't know exactly how much, but certainly a lot more than is currently occurring, so let's {double, quadruple, 10x} the current levels and then re-assess.
- Dylan16807 7y agoIt definitely should be codified. And anyone with power that isn't strongly advocating for that is acting immorally. The nature of the game is very much not an excuse, it's something to rally against.
- gnaritas 7y ago> You can blame the players for not helping other players That's called entitlement. They have no duty to share their wealth beyond what they choose which as most people, is their family.