8 ms·

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rule

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble about what the definition of bare minimum, but to me it should include housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair, as people who don't have access to those don't have the minimum to compete with those who do. We can't have an equal playing field. But we can perhaps make the bare minimum livable. [1]This is almost impossible, as opposed to entirely impossible

gremlinsinc 6y ago
I can't see our modern society lasting without this. Not much longer. Not after covid, and whatever 2020's throw at us, and global warming. Food riots, and real civil discord are only months away, if not weeks.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  That's alarmist and unfounded. The economy has recovered heartily, in general civil discord has gone away in most areas, and grocery stores aren't running out of food or going insane with prices - I'm still sipping fancy kombucha at the same rate I paid a year ago. More people are concerned about whether their uber eats driver is going to show up on time than food riots at the moment. I don't see that changing in the immediate future.
- esrauch 6y ago
  It seems like plausible fears could be raised for food riots in our lifetimes, but not really in weeks. There's not even widespread shortages and depression era soup kitchen lines today, and those would surely preceed food riots.
vorpalhex 6y ago
What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor? They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone. Sure, your Hollywood actor is probably driving an exotic sports car and their iphone is diamond studded, but fundamentally, what does it matter? > housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair I agree in the general but I suspect we disagree quite differently on the details. We do provide housing for the poor, and short term homelessness outcomes are actually generally positive - we tend to get people who lose their home back into another house. We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas is exceedingly affordable with massive scholarship opportunities available for ivy leagues. You can walk into any hospital and it's illegal for them to refuse you treatment. Does this mean our society is without fault? Of course not - we've shown repeatedly that we're terrible at finding real solutions for the persistently homeless (and no, shoving them into homes doesn't actually fix their problems as much as it fixes the stats), and healthcare is at best described as "horrifically abberant". And we should fix those things. But that some Hollywood starlett is flying around in a gulfstream has nothing to do with those fundamental problems - it is not a lack of resources but a lack of willingness and deep understanding of the problem space. It's easy to blame the wealthy, it's much harder to solve the actual problem set.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  > We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas Can you actually do anything with just an associate's? In my experience, most places that require college degrees require a minimum of a bachelor's.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    My local community college offers some bachelor degrees, and an associates degree can be a meaningful life change even if it's just a move to a management position.
- biomodel 6y ago
  And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standard of living including basic food, housing and health care then we can provide it through the market in the form of a basic income It will avoid the perverse incentives that lead people to get costly health care in the ER (which is then covered by other patients) instead of having health insurance and receiving preventative care It can prevent people from avoiding getting a higher income lest they start earning too much to qualify for the social programs they depend on No UBI won't fix all problems - but it may very well pay for itself through better externalities
wutwutwutwut 6y ago
Why do you prefer a definition that is achievable? What you describe is of course good, but maybe we could just call that a welfare society or some other words. Giving people the bare minimum won't automatically make their lives fair.
baconandeggs 6y ago
> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair. Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness. But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend to be fitter and more attractive and Hollywood knows it. An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans. And that is why I say fairness is the most important, the rules have to be the same for everyone because that is the part that is up to us.
- akuchling 6y ago
  "the rules have to be the same for everyone" "The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." --Anatole France (I always meant to get a more precise source for this quote.)
- danans 6y ago
  > I don't want equal at the expense of fair. > An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans. Extreme economic inequality drives unfairness by tipping the scales towards the very wealthy. Nobody is suggesting that we somehow enforce biological equality, whether between individuals of the same age, or among individuals of very different ages. To suggest so is a strawman intended to distract from the real problem of growing economic inequality. Also, you don't need to abolish inheritance to increase fairness, but in the context of growing inequality, you must limit the extent to which it drives unfairness by phasing it out as wealth grows exponentially.
- Fargren 6y ago
  I'll restate what I said: In a game of Monopoly, someone who starts with more money is not playing under the same rules. A game of Monopoly where one player starts with more money is not a fair game, even thought we all move 6 spaces forward when we roll a six. The same thing is true in life. Perhaps I can put it another way: the existing laws are not the only rules that govern our laws. We all live under the same laws, but we don't all live under the same rules. For some people, it's a rule that if they quit their job they will quickly be homeless. For other people (whose only merit is to be born in the right place), there is not such rule. This is not fair. My definition of fair is not perfect, but it looks to resolve the most egregious cases of unfairness I can think of.
econcon 6y ago
Some people are also more attractive and they are able to capitalize on it easily, they are treated better etc.. You are just targeting one thing it's called inheritance, what about other things like "social network and connections which are passed to the new heirs in the family", beauty/atheletic abilities and other talent?

gremlinsinc 6y ago

I can't see our modern society lasting without this. Not much longer. Not after covid, and whatever 2020's throw at us, and global warming. Food riots, and real civil discord are only months away, if not weeks.

vorpalhex 6y ago
That's alarmist and unfounded. The economy has recovered heartily, in general civil discord has gone away in most areas, and grocery stores aren't running out of food or going insane with prices - I'm still sipping fancy kombucha at the same rate I paid a year ago. More people are concerned about whether their uber eats driver is going to show up on time than food riots at the moment. I don't see that changing in the immediate future.
esrauch 6y ago
It seems like plausible fears could be raised for food riots in our lifetimes, but not really in weeks. There's not even widespread shortages and depression era soup kitchen lines today, and those would surely preceed food riots.

vorpalhex 6y ago

What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor? They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone. Sure, your Hollywood actor is probably driving an exotic sports car and their iphone is diamond studded, but fundamentally, what does it matter? > housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair I agree in the general but I suspect we disagree quite differently on the details. We do provide housing for the poor, and short term homelessness outcomes are actually generally positive - we tend to get people who lose their home back into another house. We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas is exceedingly affordable with massive scholarship opportunities available for ivy leagues. You can walk into any hospital and it's illegal for them to refuse you treatment. Does this mean our society is without fault? Of course not - we've shown repeatedly that we're terrible at finding real solutions for the persistently homeless (and no, shoving them into homes doesn't actually fix their problems as much as it fixes the stats), and healthcare is at best described as "horrifically abberant". And we should fix those things. But that some Hollywood starlett is flying around in a gulfstream has nothing to do with those fundamental problems - it is not a lack of resources but a lack of willingness and deep understanding of the problem space. It's easy to blame the wealthy, it's much harder to solve the actual problem set.

bobthepanda 6y ago
> We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas Can you actually do anything with just an associate's? In my experience, most places that require college degrees require a minimum of a bachelor's.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  My local community college offers some bachelor degrees, and an associates degree can be a meaningful life change even if it's just a move to a management position.
biomodel 6y ago
And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standard of living including basic food, housing and health care then we can provide it through the market in the form of a basic income It will avoid the perverse incentives that lead people to get costly health care in the ER (which is then covered by other patients) instead of having health insurance and receiving preventative care It can prevent people from avoiding getting a higher income lest they start earning too much to qualify for the social programs they depend on No UBI won't fix all problems - but it may very well pay for itself through better externalities

wutwutwutwut 6y ago

Why do you prefer a definition that is achievable? What you describe is of course good, but maybe we could just call that a welfare society or some other words. Giving people the bare minimum won't automatically make their lives fair.

baconandeggs 6y ago

> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair. Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness. But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend to be fitter and more attractive and Hollywood knows it. An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans. And that is why I say fairness is the most important, the rules have to be the same for everyone because that is the part that is up to us.

akuchling 6y ago
"the rules have to be the same for everyone" "The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." --Anatole France (I always meant to get a more precise source for this quote.)
danans 6y ago
> I don't want equal at the expense of fair. > An equal playing field in the way you describe it will never be achievable by humans. Extreme economic inequality drives unfairness by tipping the scales towards the very wealthy. Nobody is suggesting that we somehow enforce biological equality, whether between individuals of the same age, or among individuals of very different ages. To suggest so is a strawman intended to distract from the real problem of growing economic inequality. Also, you don't need to abolish inheritance to increase fairness, but in the context of growing inequality, you must limit the extent to which it drives unfairness by phasing it out as wealth grows exponentially.
Fargren 6y ago
I'll restate what I said: In a game of Monopoly, someone who starts with more money is not playing under the same rules. A game of Monopoly where one player starts with more money is not a fair game, even thought we all move 6 spaces forward when we roll a six. The same thing is true in life. Perhaps I can put it another way: the existing laws are not the only rules that govern our laws. We all live under the same laws, but we don't all live under the same rules. For some people, it's a rule that if they quit their job they will quickly be homeless. For other people (whose only merit is to be born in the right place), there is not such rule. This is not fair. My definition of fair is not perfect, but it looks to resolve the most egregious cases of unfairness I can think of.

econcon 6y ago

Some people are also more attractive and they are able to capitalize on it easily, they are treated better etc.. You are just targeting one thing it's called inheritance, what about other things like "social network and connections which are passed to the new heirs in the family", beauty/atheletic abilities and other talent?