5 ms·

> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Having recently decid

> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Having recently decided that I dislike leftist politics and that I align more with right-wing politics (in theory, if not in practice), the thing that switched in my mind is: why does it matter whether or not society is fair? I think that's the wrong question; I don't see any intrinsic value in fairness. I think the right questions are: (1) how can we improve our average level of well-being, and (2) how can we reduce suffering? So in my view, progressives incidentally get some important issues right including single-payer healthcare and environmental conservation. These policies tangibly improve our quality of life. But all the emphasis on equality, fairness, etc? Useless, in my view.

WalterBright 5y ago
You can never make life fair for someone who is disabled. I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. There are endless people taller, smarter, faster, younger, handsomer, healthier, etc., than me. Obsessing over the implicit and inevitable unfairness of that is a total waste of time and energy. More generally, no two people are the same. It's not possible to make it fair even for two people, let alone billions.
- anoncake 5y ago
  That's a strawman. No one's claiming we can achieve total equality.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > No one's claiming we can achieve total equality I haven't seen any end to raising the bar. Where do you think it should end?
    - anoncake 5y ago
      Obviously you cannot redistribute things that cannot be redistributed, for starters.
      - jseban 5y ago
        It's not uncommon among leftist to suggest systemic punishments and disadvantages for people who are born with certain physical and/or mental strengths and talents.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        The Seattle school district decided to get rid of their gifted programs because it was unfair and increased inequality.
        triceratops 5y ago
        Seems like they reversed course though.[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/gifted-programs-worsen-inequality-here-s-what-happens-when-schools-n1243147 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/gifted-programs-worse...
        anoncake 5y ago
        That could be reasonable if the resources used for that are reallocated to students who are behind.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        At our nearby state high school, during physical education class, they didn’t allow people to lap anyone during running periods because it was unfair to those not fit. You can imagine what that looked like and who was walking around the gym with everyone else following slowly.
        anoncake 5y ago
        That isn't redistribution -- redistribution requires that someone actually gains something. That's plain stupid. Whoever made that decision didn't go too far, they went into a completely wrong direction.
  - jseban 5y ago
    Yeah but the point is that any attempt of redistribution in the name of fairness, is also equally unfair from the opposite perspective. So there is no way to make anything "more fair", if you take from one person to give to another, it's always unfair for one of them.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      It feels unfair to one of them. That doesn't mean it is.
- iso1631 5y ago
  > I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. That's a decision that thousands of americans make every year they can't afford the healthcare they need to keep them healthy. Those that can still work ridiculous hours damaging their health for far less than $1b - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/29/opinion/work-hours-us-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/29/opinion/work-hours-us-hea...
- jseban 5y ago
  I absolutely agree, the idea of a fair society needs to go away, it's just a dead end that only leads to fighting over crumbs and stifling productivity, what we need to do is get rid of jealousy and resentment.
iso1631 5y ago
> how can we improve our average level of well-being What average? MEAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 1 person with $10m and 99 people with nothing (mean=100k) System 2: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) The latter is far far better despite on mean being worse. MEDIAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 51 person with $1m and 49 people with nothing (median=$1m) System 2: 100 people with $250k (median=250k) The latter is better despite median being worse. If you want to decide if a system is fair or not, think which system you'd like to live in if you rolled a D10 and ended up being born into the decile you landed in. Roll a 10 in america and it's great. Roll a 1 and you're collecting cans and hoping you don't get an ingrowing toenail.
- jseban 5y ago
  Yeah but in reality what happens is that if you redistribute too much, you stifle productivity to the point where you have no improvements at all, and your mean will start to regress. Why? Because you have removed all incentives for people to improve, and rather introduced the perverse incentive of preferring to be on the receiving end. In reality it's more like System 1: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) System 2: 98 people with $60k and 2 people with $10m (mean=259k) And then people argue that System 2 is worse because the small increase for the most people is not worth the humiliation of some times seeing a person with 10m which is unfair.
  - jseban 5y ago
    Personally I much prefer System 2 and I'm happy that I have 60k instead of 50k. Money is just a tool to give me freedom, and 60k means more freedom than 50k, so I'll take that deal any day. The rich guys who have 10 houses or whatever, doesn't bother me at all, I simply don't care, and I'm sure that they are not much happier. Exactly the same way that I don't spend my time grudging over the fact that some guys are 100 times more handsome and charming and talented than me
    - iso1631 5y ago
      Those rich guys owning those houses pushes up the price of the houses and means you can't afford it, or you have to work 80 hours a week to afford it. That's not a good position to be in.

WalterBright 5y ago

You can never make life fair for someone who is disabled. I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. There are endless people taller, smarter, faster, younger, handsomer, healthier, etc., than me. Obsessing over the implicit and inevitable unfairness of that is a total waste of time and energy. More generally, no two people are the same. It's not possible to make it fair even for two people, let alone billions.

anoncake 5y ago
That's a strawman. No one's claiming we can achieve total equality.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > No one's claiming we can achieve total equality I haven't seen any end to raising the bar. Where do you think it should end?
  - anoncake 5y ago
    Obviously you cannot redistribute things that cannot be redistributed, for starters.
    - jseban 5y ago
      It's not uncommon among leftist to suggest systemic punishments and disadvantages for people who are born with certain physical and/or mental strengths and talents.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      The Seattle school district decided to get rid of their gifted programs because it was unfair and increased inequality.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        Seems like they reversed course though.[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/gifted-programs-worsen-inequality-here-s-what-happens-when-schools-n1243147 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/gifted-programs-worse...
      - anoncake 5y ago
        That could be reasonable if the resources used for that are reallocated to students who are behind.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      At our nearby state high school, during physical education class, they didn’t allow people to lap anyone during running periods because it was unfair to those not fit. You can imagine what that looked like and who was walking around the gym with everyone else following slowly.
      - anoncake 5y ago
        That isn't redistribution -- redistribution requires that someone actually gains something. That's plain stupid. Whoever made that decision didn't go too far, they went into a completely wrong direction.
- jseban 5y ago
  Yeah but the point is that any attempt of redistribution in the name of fairness, is also equally unfair from the opposite perspective. So there is no way to make anything "more fair", if you take from one person to give to another, it's always unfair for one of them.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    It feels unfair to one of them. That doesn't mean it is.
iso1631 5y ago
> I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. That's a decision that thousands of americans make every year they can't afford the healthcare they need to keep them healthy. Those that can still work ridiculous hours damaging their health for far less than $1b - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/29/opinion/work-hours-us-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/29/opinion/work-hours-us-hea...
jseban 5y ago
I absolutely agree, the idea of a fair society needs to go away, it's just a dead end that only leads to fighting over crumbs and stifling productivity, what we need to do is get rid of jealousy and resentment.

iso1631 5y ago

> how can we improve our average level of well-being What average? MEAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 1 person with $10m and 99 people with nothing (mean=100k) System 2: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) The latter is far far better despite on mean being worse. MEDIAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 51 person with $1m and 49 people with nothing (median=$1m) System 2: 100 people with $250k (median=250k) The latter is better despite median being worse. If you want to decide if a system is fair or not, think which system you'd like to live in if you rolled a D10 and ended up being born into the decile you landed in. Roll a 10 in america and it's great. Roll a 1 and you're collecting cans and hoping you don't get an ingrowing toenail.

jseban 5y ago
Yeah but in reality what happens is that if you redistribute too much, you stifle productivity to the point where you have no improvements at all, and your mean will start to regress. Why? Because you have removed all incentives for people to improve, and rather introduced the perverse incentive of preferring to be on the receiving end. In reality it's more like System 1: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) System 2: 98 people with $60k and 2 people with $10m (mean=259k) And then people argue that System 2 is worse because the small increase for the most people is not worth the humiliation of some times seeing a person with 10m which is unfair.
- jseban 5y ago
  Personally I much prefer System 2 and I'm happy that I have 60k instead of 50k. Money is just a tool to give me freedom, and 60k means more freedom than 50k, so I'll take that deal any day. The rich guys who have 10 houses or whatever, doesn't bother me at all, I simply don't care, and I'm sure that they are not much happier. Exactly the same way that I don't spend my time grudging over the fact that some guys are 100 times more handsome and charming and talented than me
  - iso1631 5y ago
    Those rich guys owning those houses pushes up the price of the houses and means you can't afford it, or you have to work 80 hours a week to afford it. That's not a good position to be in.