4 ms·

This piece is jumping from (un)equality in the family to (un)equality in the state. That itself does not seem to be a good idea. The state cannot be run as if i

by cjfd 7y ago

This piece is jumping from (un)equality in the family to (un)equality in the state. That itself does not seem to be a good idea. The state cannot be run as if it were a family. Regarding the family conundrum I would say that the four children should get an equal amount unless there is a very severe reason not to do so. One does not want to risk poisoning the relationship between the children after one is gone. Regarding equality in the state the answer is that the state should strive to not have severe inequalities of opportunity, especially if they are so severe that they inhibit social mobility. This can never be done perfectly, though. Also, a situation of equality of opportunity will not lead to equality of outcome because, as this piece also discusses, people have different abilities, interests, and other attributes.

CaptArmchair 7y ago
That's exact the conclusion of the article. The author opens with a description of (in)equality in very different contexts, in order to put a thesis in front of us: it's not possible to devise and apply an absolute definition of equality based on first principles, because the meaning or significance of equality is rooted in the complexity of our human condition. How we approach equality is always context dependent. Your argument to split the inheritance equally is just as valid as splitting inequally as far as the Universe and the rest of humanity is concerned. Whereas from the point of view of the parents, favoring one strategy over the other is based on moral principle as well as opportunity costs. The relationship between children and children/parents being a factor of varying importance. As far as states are concerned, preserving social mobility isn't the end goal; it's a way station. The main goal of a state is to ensure the survival of a collective. No more, no less. Let's not forget that a 'state' only exists as a social construct. Equality and inequality alike are a function of how the vast number of interests - needs and wants - of individuals either align or collide with each other. When you look at both families and states, you will see that similar dynamics and behaviors are at play. Individuals will always make a cost/benefit calculation in order to find out the extent to which a given strategy will yield value; either by contributing to the group and/or choose their own personal gain over the group. The main difference is the context, and so different variables will be used to calculate trade offs. As far as social mobility is concerned, your parents will have very different motivators to fund your high-ed schooling as opposed to what a state is willing to facilitate. The latter will only invest in individuals to the extent that doing so ensures the benefit of the collective, but there's little incentive to go beyond that. The idea that the state "should take care of its citizens" has always been and will always be at odds with the individual interests of those same citizens. Hence why the dilapitated state of an education or healthcare system isn't a pressing problem until it becomes a problem for too many individuals and it threatens the survival of the collective as a whole. The main concern of the state is not to pursue an ideal amount of equality amongst its citizens, but an optimum amount to ensure its continued existence. Whereas your parents will always hope that an ideal situation can be attained for the sake of their own children... which is very much a personal interest indeed.
TuringTest 7y ago
> Regarding the family conundrum I would say that the four children should get an equal amount unless there is a very severe reason not to do so. There's also evidence from the Talent vs luck model that doing so must be the most beneficial strategy to maximize the potential benefits of their talent. It shows that giving opportunities among all players is a superior strategy to giving more resources to those who have performed better so far. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...

by cjfd 7y ago

CaptArmchair 7y ago

That's exact the conclusion of the article. The author opens with a description of (in)equality in very different contexts, in order to put a thesis in front of us: it's not possible to devise and apply an absolute definition of equality based on first principles, because the meaning or significance of equality is rooted in the complexity of our human condition. How we approach equality is always context dependent. Your argument to split the inheritance equally is just as valid as splitting inequally as far as the Universe and the rest of humanity is concerned. Whereas from the point of view of the parents, favoring one strategy over the other is based on moral principle as well as opportunity costs. The relationship between children and children/parents being a factor of varying importance. As far as states are concerned, preserving social mobility isn't the end goal; it's a way station. The main goal of a state is to ensure the survival of a collective. No more, no less. Let's not forget that a 'state' only exists as a social construct. Equality and inequality alike are a function of how the vast number of interests - needs and wants - of individuals either align or collide with each other. When you look at both families and states, you will see that similar dynamics and behaviors are at play. Individuals will always make a cost/benefit calculation in order to find out the extent to which a given strategy will yield value; either by contributing to the group and/or choose their own personal gain over the group. The main difference is the context, and so different variables will be used to calculate trade offs. As far as social mobility is concerned, your parents will have very different motivators to fund your high-ed schooling as opposed to what a state is willing to facilitate. The latter will only invest in individuals to the extent that doing so ensures the benefit of the collective, but there's little incentive to go beyond that. The idea that the state "should take care of its citizens" has always been and will always be at odds with the individual interests of those same citizens. Hence why the dilapitated state of an education or healthcare system isn't a pressing problem until it becomes a problem for too many individuals and it threatens the survival of the collective as a whole. The main concern of the state is not to pursue an ideal amount of equality amongst its citizens, but an optimum amount to ensure its continued existence. Whereas your parents will always hope that an ideal situation can be attained for the sake of their own children... which is very much a personal interest indeed.

TuringTest 7y ago

> Regarding the family conundrum I would say that the four children should get an equal amount unless there is a very severe reason not to do so. There's also evidence from the Talent vs luck model that doing so must be the most beneficial strategy to maximize the potential benefits of their talent. It shows that giving opportunities among all players is a superior strategy to giving more resources to those who have performed better so far. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...