4 ms·
It seems obvious to me that we can break the discussion apart into one of: * equality of opportunity * equality of political representation * equality of mea
by md_ 5y ago
It seems obvious to me that we can break the discussion apart into one of:
* equality of opportunity
* equality of political representation
* equality of means
I agree that the last is the least important. Unfortunately, data and common sense both suggest that inequality of means results in inequality of opportunity (see e.g https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf), and that, in a democracy where money talks, it translates to inequality of political representation as well.
- anoncake 5y agoEquality of opportunity and equality of means are the same thing. Everyone tries to make the best of their opportunities. Some just don't have the ability to do so, which is also a kind of opportunity.
- md_ 5y agoI think by the most deterministic view of human behavior everything boils down to inequalities of opportunity, but that may be a little reductive. I was looking at this more in the Rawlsian sense of “everyone should have the same chances, such that if they had the same ability they could achieve the same thing.” I don’t think I (or most “meritocratic” societies) believe that social equalizers should completely eradicate differences in outcome that arise from innate differences in ability—but perhaps those differences should be somewhat reduced. Concretely: if the same person were born rich or poor, they should be able to achieve mostly the same things. But if the same person were born stupid (or lazy) or smart, it’s probably ok if there is some resultant difference in outcomes, as long as all outcomes support basic dignity and needs, right?