10 ms·

I am with you, but please argument your opinion. It is somewhat obvious from any "moral" standpoint, but every time I try to dig why people think that way I onl

I am with you, but please argument your opinion. It is somewhat obvious from any "moral" standpoint, but every time I try to dig why people think that way I only find badly formulated opinions, based on nothing, but some vague belief systems of "right" and "wrong".

dabbernaught420 6y ago
Wealth gives a person power. The people who get very wealthy (in our current system) are not generally the people who will do the best things with power. This seems like a situation which could be improved on.
- tosers4 6y ago
  Well, Bezos is putting billions of his money (not amazon's) into space industry (Blue Origin), that's nice
  - dabbernaught420 6y ago
    A person or group with immense power can trivially achieve great good. However, if you consider systems A and B, where system A is a bit better at using immense power for good than system B, you will notice that system A will result in a lot more good than system B. Therefore, if you care even a little bit about good things happening, you will be very keen to have system A instead of system B. The fact that someone with immense power does something good becomes a lot less reassuring when you consider the opportunity cost of not having someone or some people who are a lot better at achieving good have that immense power.
    - tosers4 6y ago
      Someone a lot better a doing good were not apparently good enough at getting the resources to do good. You can't just dump a lot of power into someone you think that does good, because you have know way to know if (s)he is even able to manage that to start to do go. At least bezos continues to improve the world infrastructure through amazon, and financing the space industry though blue origin.
      - dabbernaught420 6y ago
        > Someone a lot better a doing good were not apparently good enough at getting the resources to do good. Yes, that is pretty close to my point. We have created a system in which good people are not the people who get a lot of resources.
        tosers4 6y ago
        If (s)he can't get/create resources, how can he do good? It seems you would just put a waster in power. It's the difference between charity orgs with fading impact, and the ones that change people lives. Same applies to corporations, plenty changed the world for the better.
        dabbernaught420 6y ago
        Think of the people behind creating wealth and think about the people who actually get wealth. You will find that the two groups differ drastically.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      But this begets the question: How do we know that this system with Jeff Bezos is not already System A? There are a lot of people who think they know what System A is and believe we are in System B but there's no lack of examples of people who get their chance to implement what they believe is System B and cause far more misery because they didn't know we were in System A (relatively speaking) Personally, a system that generally rewards competency and is based on voluntary transactions to me is trending towards System A because people who amass power in such a system and maintain it generally do so because they are good at getting results through transactions that on the whole are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial.
      - dabbernaught420 6y ago
        >Personally, a system that generally rewards competency and is based on voluntary transactions to me is trending towards System A because people who amass power in such a system and maintain it generally do so because they are good at getting results through transactions that on the whole are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial. It's easy to imagine systems which have more freedom and are better at rewarding competency. Like anarcho-syndicalism. If freedom and the rewarding of competency are what you value, why dismiss systems such as this? Throughout history humanity has gone through several systems. I'm not sure your justifications for believing the current one is the best would hold up to scrutiny.
    - TimPC 6y ago
      The problem with more equal systems is that no one has that immense power to do good. So you end up needing to solve huge coordination problems that historically we are very bad at in order to achieve such projects. Governments have a bad track record of achieving such things relative to the private sector and they seem to be the best vehicle available for said coordination problems.
mhoad 6y ago
I think you have kind of answered it there in your own response. It is indeed obvious from a moral standpoint. Why you chose to put moral in quotes is kind of interesting to me, it's not inherently a less valid standpoint, hell, I would argue it's a more valid standpoint than many. But fundamentally, yes, this is an argument about two things: 1. Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs [1] and historically when that has happened in the past violence has followed, therefore I think it would be better that we had the conversation about it now. 2. I think it is fair to ask questions about what kind of moral and ethical lines have been crossed in order to reach a net worth of $171 billion dollars. We as a society are within our rights to take moments like this as a time to stop and ask some questions about if "the system" is working in a way that seems fair to some or fair to the majority and ideally even all. I'm not offering an answer on that one just prompting a moment of reflection. [1] https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never...
- artemonster 6y ago
  well, something being obvious does not make it an axiom, not worth of an argument and/or a proof. in fact, there are many examples "obviously right" views that can be proven wrong. Thank you for the points you've provided, I agree with them totally. I just wanted to see what kind of logic stood behind your opinion, that's it :)
- kolbe 6y ago
  "Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Many people also routinely watch the Kardashians. We're trying to get at the root of a moral right, and citing what "most people" think is basically irrelevant. "Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Citation that shows causal relationship is needed here.
  - mhoad 6y ago
    I'm trying to have a serious conversation here and you're talking about "many people also watch the Kardashians" as some kind of counter argument. Can we do this without the snark? It's not worth engaging otherwise. Do you even consider inequality to be a problem in society and if so do you have any thoughts on what we should do about it?

dabbernaught420 6y ago

Wealth gives a person power. The people who get very wealthy (in our current system) are not generally the people who will do the best things with power. This seems like a situation which could be improved on.

tosers4 6y ago
Well, Bezos is putting billions of his money (not amazon's) into space industry (Blue Origin), that's nice
- dabbernaught420 6y ago
  A person or group with immense power can trivially achieve great good. However, if you consider systems A and B, where system A is a bit better at using immense power for good than system B, you will notice that system A will result in a lot more good than system B. Therefore, if you care even a little bit about good things happening, you will be very keen to have system A instead of system B. The fact that someone with immense power does something good becomes a lot less reassuring when you consider the opportunity cost of not having someone or some people who are a lot better at achieving good have that immense power.
  - tosers4 6y ago
    Someone a lot better a doing good were not apparently good enough at getting the resources to do good. You can't just dump a lot of power into someone you think that does good, because you have know way to know if (s)he is even able to manage that to start to do go. At least bezos continues to improve the world infrastructure through amazon, and financing the space industry though blue origin.
    - dabbernaught420 6y ago
      > Someone a lot better a doing good were not apparently good enough at getting the resources to do good. Yes, that is pretty close to my point. We have created a system in which good people are not the people who get a lot of resources.
      - tosers4 6y ago
        If (s)he can't get/create resources, how can he do good? It seems you would just put a waster in power. It's the difference between charity orgs with fading impact, and the ones that change people lives. Same applies to corporations, plenty changed the world for the better.
        dabbernaught420 6y ago
        Think of the people behind creating wealth and think about the people who actually get wealth. You will find that the two groups differ drastically.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    But this begets the question: How do we know that this system with Jeff Bezos is not already System A? There are a lot of people who think they know what System A is and believe we are in System B but there's no lack of examples of people who get their chance to implement what they believe is System B and cause far more misery because they didn't know we were in System A (relatively speaking) Personally, a system that generally rewards competency and is based on voluntary transactions to me is trending towards System A because people who amass power in such a system and maintain it generally do so because they are good at getting results through transactions that on the whole are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial.
    - dabbernaught420 6y ago
      >Personally, a system that generally rewards competency and is based on voluntary transactions to me is trending towards System A because people who amass power in such a system and maintain it generally do so because they are good at getting results through transactions that on the whole are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial. It's easy to imagine systems which have more freedom and are better at rewarding competency. Like anarcho-syndicalism. If freedom and the rewarding of competency are what you value, why dismiss systems such as this? Throughout history humanity has gone through several systems. I'm not sure your justifications for believing the current one is the best would hold up to scrutiny.
  - TimPC 6y ago
    The problem with more equal systems is that no one has that immense power to do good. So you end up needing to solve huge coordination problems that historically we are very bad at in order to achieve such projects. Governments have a bad track record of achieving such things relative to the private sector and they seem to be the best vehicle available for said coordination problems.

mhoad 6y ago

I think you have kind of answered it there in your own response. It is indeed obvious from a moral standpoint. Why you chose to put moral in quotes is kind of interesting to me, it's not inherently a less valid standpoint, hell, I would argue it's a more valid standpoint than many. But fundamentally, yes, this is an argument about two things: 1. Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs [1] and historically when that has happened in the past violence has followed, therefore I think it would be better that we had the conversation about it now. 2. I think it is fair to ask questions about what kind of moral and ethical lines have been crossed in order to reach a net worth of $171 billion dollars. We as a society are within our rights to take moments like this as a time to stop and ask some questions about if "the system" is working in a way that seems fair to some or fair to the majority and ideally even all. I'm not offering an answer on that one just prompting a moment of reflection. [1] https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never...

artemonster 6y ago
well, something being obvious does not make it an axiom, not worth of an argument and/or a proof. in fact, there are many examples "obviously right" views that can be proven wrong. Thank you for the points you've provided, I agree with them totally. I just wanted to see what kind of logic stood behind your opinion, that's it :)
kolbe 6y ago
"Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Many people also routinely watch the Kardashians. We're trying to get at the root of a moral right, and citing what "most people" think is basically irrelevant. "Inequality is at what many would consider to be unacceptable highs" Citation that shows causal relationship is needed here.
- mhoad 6y ago
  I'm trying to have a serious conversation here and you're talking about "many people also watch the Kardashians" as some kind of counter argument. Can we do this without the snark? It's not worth engaging otherwise. Do you even consider inequality to be a problem in society and if so do you have any thoughts on what we should do about it?