7 ms·

Don't try to turn this into a strawman communism versus capitalism discussion. I think most would agree that some inequality is good. After all, people are not

Don't try to turn this into a strawman communism versus capitalism discussion. I think most would agree that some inequality is good. After all, people are not equal. However, a too high degree of inequality will fuel social unrest. It leads to a society in which the rich have to build higher and higher walls to keep out the poor. Not my idea of a fun place to live.

abbasmehdi 16y ago
I agree, it must be a mix, where you have the opportunity for growth at the same time you don't get a free ride. However there is always and always will be a bottom 20 percent that needs to be taken care of.
- palish 16y ago
  Er. Why should the bottom 20% of society be "taken care of"? Is it because we're afraid they'll turn into criminals if we don't? Because that would be equivalent to paying off the mob. Honest question.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    "Since they can't or won't do it for themselves, it's our duty" is how the argument usually goes. I've always chaffed with that sentiment a bit. "Can't"- ok. "Won't"? That's a choice.
    - palish 16y ago
      But... It's not our duty. Why should it be?
      - sliverstorm 16y ago
        I never said it was our duty. Hell, I even said I didn't like it. It's a moral judgement many folks make, is all.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    My brain's not yet running this morning and I can't think of the term for this point, but as it's now in my brain I'll come back and link to more details as soon as I think of it. The rough concept is that, when it comes to society/politics/law, you should think as if you are yet to be born and don't know where in society you will end up. So, you might become the richest man in the world, or you might live a life in poverty and unemployment. As to why it matters, should people dying of hunger in the third world be ignored? Should we not care about homeless people who are sleeping in the cold and wet and will have crazily low life expectancy and a terrible standard of living? I'm not sure where the 20% comes from or how accurate an estimate that is, but the more fortunate should always do their part, whether through legislation (such as taxation) or charity, to help the less fortunate. While different people will have different views on many areas of this, such as to what extent they should be helped, how badly off you have to be to deserve it, and so on and so on, I think very few would say that the bottom end of society deserves no help at all.
    - palish 16y ago
      What I'm saying is, if people decide to donate their own money to charity, then that's fine. But I don't understand the attitude of "It's noble to steal money from some, and redistribute it to others". It seems immoral.
      - corin_ 16y ago
        If you couldn't afford to pay your bills, couldn't afford a place to live, couldn't afford health insurance, couldn't afford to buy clothes for your children, would you still have that view? Or would you be rather glad that there's a system (even if not a great one) that helps balance society out a little bit? And frankly you shouldn't need to have to imagine being in that position, how can you not feel that we should all care about those worse off than ourselves? Oh, and there are plenty of selfish reasons as well. Society would fall apart if only the rich were able to live and we left the poor to, eventually, either become rich or die out. Who would make your cars, clothes, food, serve you a coffee, sell you your ticket to a sports game, etc etc.
  - abbasmehdi 16y ago
    Thanks for the honest question Palish. I have noticed from teaching that if you take a large enough sample the bottom 20 percent always struggle more. These could the issues udutu society or some kind of intelligence or disability. I am not going to pretend that I know the answer but there is always the bottom 20 percent that needs, extra help so I think on the grounds of compassion they shall be given extra assistance. I understand your point on meritocracy , however we cannot assume that everybody starts at the same starting line. So from my point of view it is based on the grounds of compassion. Again, thank you for the question.
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      the bottom 20 percent always struggle more Isn't this a tautology, or am I confused?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - abbasmehdi 15y ago
        Good observation Cache. So the point becomes shall we help those who have greater hardships built-in to their paths.
  - abbasmehdi 15y ago
    Another answer: give me the choice of how my [tax] money is spent. I have no option but to pay you (taxes), and no say in how you spend it. Maybe its because I will never check the 'war' box and they need my money for it, I'd rather help pay for public education, social services for the elderly, disabled etc., and green energy research. If I had say on how my money is spent, we would not be having this conversation (I live in California and pay a gang load of taxes, majority of which goes towards things I don't support - naturally I'm not happy about the liberty taken on my behalf :-).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 16y ago
  They are being taken care of. Look at how much money we pay for food stamps, unemployment benefits, section 8 housing, etc.
fleitz 16y ago
To me it's about egalitarian distribution of wealth, there are many ways to distribute it, perhaps there are systems that distribute wealth in a more egalitarian manner than capitalism and it would be great to hear some of those ideas. It's well known to most economists that there are definite cases where the free market system does not work well. I didn't even mention free market / communism, let alone construct a straw man. If you think I have please point it out and add to the conversation. If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. (Seriously, the idea is 300 years old, surely in that time we've found something better) I agree with most people that those unfortunate enough to not be able to provide for themselves due to sickness or disability should be taken care of but I think that's a relatively small amount of money and everyone would agree that that sort of thing should be done.
- wladimir 16y ago
  If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution -- I never said that. Wealth should indeed be distributed according to contribution, but contribution is not that easily measurable. There are a lot of things that affect your contribution to society that are not measured by how much money you can take from others. I just don't agree that some people contribute more than 1000 times as much as others. Everyone is human. We all simply play our part. So in my eyes, distributing according to contribution will not result in a that large inequality.
- exit 15y ago
  > If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. an individuals contribution is largely a matter of their innate dispositions coinciding with their innate aptitudes coinciding with the particular labor demands at the time in which one is alive. society perpetuates bring people into this world without any guarantee that they will be able to contribute at a certain level. yet you expect that only the individual should carry the burden of that throw of the dice? i put A LOT of effort into training myself as a software developer and now make a reasonable living from that, but i also simply found myself at a young age with a passion for understanding computers and a reasonable aptitude for the kind of thinking involved. other kids found themselves with a disposition for sports, or painting, or french literature, etc., but maybe their aptitude doesn't make the cut in those winner-take-all fields. tragically, other kids simply never find any disposition or aptitude. they don't deserve to be in that position any more than i deserve to be in mine. so yes, there ought to be systems for redistributing wealth from those who are lucky enough to find themselves with financially remunerable dispositions and aptitudes. there ought to be guarantees for certain standards of living, and those standards ought to be damn high given that no one asks to be born, no one asks to be afflicted with attachment to being alive.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mseebach 15y ago
Are there any examples of inequality fueling social unrest in otherwise free countries? The US is frequenty touted as the least equal free country, but social unrest is pretty absent. The unrest there has been (the LA riots and the fight for civil rights) was fueled by pretty blatant cases of non-financial inequality. And are walls to keep out the "poor" really a consequence of inequality?

abbasmehdi 16y ago

I agree, it must be a mix, where you have the opportunity for growth at the same time you don't get a free ride. However there is always and always will be a bottom 20 percent that needs to be taken care of.

palish 16y ago
Er. Why should the bottom 20% of society be "taken care of"? Is it because we're afraid they'll turn into criminals if we don't? Because that would be equivalent to paying off the mob. Honest question.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  "Since they can't or won't do it for themselves, it's our duty" is how the argument usually goes. I've always chaffed with that sentiment a bit. "Can't"- ok. "Won't"? That's a choice.
  - palish 16y ago
    But... It's not our duty. Why should it be?
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      I never said it was our duty. Hell, I even said I didn't like it. It's a moral judgement many folks make, is all.
- corin_ 16y ago
  My brain's not yet running this morning and I can't think of the term for this point, but as it's now in my brain I'll come back and link to more details as soon as I think of it. The rough concept is that, when it comes to society/politics/law, you should think as if you are yet to be born and don't know where in society you will end up. So, you might become the richest man in the world, or you might live a life in poverty and unemployment. As to why it matters, should people dying of hunger in the third world be ignored? Should we not care about homeless people who are sleeping in the cold and wet and will have crazily low life expectancy and a terrible standard of living? I'm not sure where the 20% comes from or how accurate an estimate that is, but the more fortunate should always do their part, whether through legislation (such as taxation) or charity, to help the less fortunate. While different people will have different views on many areas of this, such as to what extent they should be helped, how badly off you have to be to deserve it, and so on and so on, I think very few would say that the bottom end of society deserves no help at all.
  - palish 16y ago
    What I'm saying is, if people decide to donate their own money to charity, then that's fine. But I don't understand the attitude of "It's noble to steal money from some, and redistribute it to others". It seems immoral.
    - corin_ 16y ago
      If you couldn't afford to pay your bills, couldn't afford a place to live, couldn't afford health insurance, couldn't afford to buy clothes for your children, would you still have that view? Or would you be rather glad that there's a system (even if not a great one) that helps balance society out a little bit? And frankly you shouldn't need to have to imagine being in that position, how can you not feel that we should all care about those worse off than ourselves? Oh, and there are plenty of selfish reasons as well. Society would fall apart if only the rich were able to live and we left the poor to, eventually, either become rich or die out. Who would make your cars, clothes, food, serve you a coffee, sell you your ticket to a sports game, etc etc.
- abbasmehdi 16y ago
  Thanks for the honest question Palish. I have noticed from teaching that if you take a large enough sample the bottom 20 percent always struggle more. These could the issues udutu society or some kind of intelligence or disability. I am not going to pretend that I know the answer but there is always the bottom 20 percent that needs, extra help so I think on the grounds of compassion they shall be given extra assistance. I understand your point on meritocracy , however we cannot assume that everybody starts at the same starting line. So from my point of view it is based on the grounds of compassion. Again, thank you for the question.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    the bottom 20 percent always struggle more Isn't this a tautology, or am I confused?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - abbasmehdi 15y ago
      Good observation Cache. So the point becomes shall we help those who have greater hardships built-in to their paths.
- abbasmehdi 15y ago
  Another answer: give me the choice of how my [tax] money is spent. I have no option but to pay you (taxes), and no say in how you spend it. Maybe its because I will never check the 'war' box and they need my money for it, I'd rather help pay for public education, social services for the elderly, disabled etc., and green energy research. If I had say on how my money is spent, we would not be having this conversation (I live in California and pay a gang load of taxes, majority of which goes towards things I don't support - naturally I'm not happy about the liberty taken on my behalf :-).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 16y ago
They are being taken care of. Look at how much money we pay for food stamps, unemployment benefits, section 8 housing, etc.

fleitz 16y ago

To me it's about egalitarian distribution of wealth, there are many ways to distribute it, perhaps there are systems that distribute wealth in a more egalitarian manner than capitalism and it would be great to hear some of those ideas. It's well known to most economists that there are definite cases where the free market system does not work well. I didn't even mention free market / communism, let alone construct a straw man. If you think I have please point it out and add to the conversation. If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. (Seriously, the idea is 300 years old, surely in that time we've found something better) I agree with most people that those unfortunate enough to not be able to provide for themselves due to sickness or disability should be taken care of but I think that's a relatively small amount of money and everyone would agree that that sort of thing should be done.

wladimir 16y ago
If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution -- I never said that. Wealth should indeed be distributed according to contribution, but contribution is not that easily measurable. There are a lot of things that affect your contribution to society that are not measured by how much money you can take from others. I just don't agree that some people contribute more than 1000 times as much as others. Everyone is human. We all simply play our part. So in my eyes, distributing according to contribution will not result in a that large inequality.
exit 15y ago
> If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. an individuals contribution is largely a matter of their innate dispositions coinciding with their innate aptitudes coinciding with the particular labor demands at the time in which one is alive. society perpetuates bring people into this world without any guarantee that they will be able to contribute at a certain level. yet you expect that only the individual should carry the burden of that throw of the dice? i put A LOT of effort into training myself as a software developer and now make a reasonable living from that, but i also simply found myself at a young age with a passion for understanding computers and a reasonable aptitude for the kind of thinking involved. other kids found themselves with a disposition for sports, or painting, or french literature, etc., but maybe their aptitude doesn't make the cut in those winner-take-all fields. tragically, other kids simply never find any disposition or aptitude. they don't deserve to be in that position any more than i deserve to be in mine. so yes, there ought to be systems for redistributing wealth from those who are lucky enough to find themselves with financially remunerable dispositions and aptitudes. there ought to be guarantees for certain standards of living, and those standards ought to be damn high given that no one asks to be born, no one asks to be afflicted with attachment to being alive.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mseebach 15y ago

Are there any examples of inequality fueling social unrest in otherwise free countries? The US is frequenty touted as the least equal free country, but social unrest is pretty absent. The unrest there has been (the LA riots and the fight for civil rights) was fueled by pretty blatant cases of non-financial inequality. And are walls to keep out the "poor" really a consequence of inequality?