5 ms·

> But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. Doesn't genetic endowment imply the exact opposite. If the "people

by Veen 5y ago

> But then people use that to argue that the people at the top deserve everything they have. Doesn't genetic endowment imply the exact opposite. If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? You might argue that they are the people who should be at the top because of their abilities, but that has nothing to do with whether they deserve it or not.

ModernMech 5y ago
> If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? The next step in the line of reasoning is that their genetics have divine provenance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel Essentially: I'm rich because I'm smart, and I'm smart because God wanted me to be, therefore God wants me to be rich. Conversely God wants poor people to be poor. If He didn't want that, then He would have made them smarter.
lamontcg 5y ago
Yeah, that's where I'm trying to go with this argument. Them: You just need to believe that genetics matters! Me: Okay, fine I do. Them: Well, then you must agree with <probably something about meritocracy and billionaires and awarding wealth to the top 1%> Me: Nope, I still want to tax billionaires out of existence and use that to support your "stupid poors" and your ideal of a ruling class and an underclass with unlimited market exploitation created by birthright of genetics is wrong (again, for the sake of argument, it still doesn't really work this way). "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" and they need more. Economically, Elon Musk should be playing with nightmare-mode level taxation levels, all the "stupid poors" need the difficulty slider backed off for them -- instead we have that nearly reversed. Whatever you call it (leftist/progressive/socialist) isn't founded at all on a rejection of genetics, attacking that gets you nowhere.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think this just us back to the basic questions society has considered for hundreds of years. How to balance of equality of outcomes vs equal treatment. How to enable individuals to develop their productive ability. What quality of life we want to provide with charity to those with low economic productivity. What tax policies achieve these goals and favors the kind economic growth that raises all boats. In my opinion, I think all of the discussions about economic fairness and what people 'deserve' is just a side freakshow distracting from these real questions.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
The problem is tying the idea deserving to be at the top to some imaginary concept of I influence in the first place. All that matters is ability, it doesn't matter how you got it. Personal influence doesn't exist in a scientific world without a soul. People are born with better or worse operating systems and hardware. Their conditions improve or deminnish their OS and function over time. We can strive for a society where the environment produces the best outcomes, but some will always be better than others at any measurable task. Saying that someone is better at something because they have better genes, better upbringing, better schooling, doesn't take away the fact that they are better. The people with the best ability do deserve to be at the top. The only question is what we can do as a society to enable individuals to develop ability to the greatest extent possible.

by Veen 5y ago

ModernMech 5y ago

> If the "people at the top" got there because of a factor over which they had no influence—what was once called a gift—how can they deserve their place? The next step in the line of reasoning is that their genetics have divine provenance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Wealth_Gospel Essentially: I'm rich because I'm smart, and I'm smart because God wanted me to be, therefore God wants me to be rich. Conversely God wants poor people to be poor. If He didn't want that, then He would have made them smarter.

lamontcg 5y ago

Yeah, that's where I'm trying to go with this argument. Them: You just need to believe that genetics matters! Me: Okay, fine I do. Them: Well, then you must agree with <probably something about meritocracy and billionaires and awarding wealth to the top 1%> Me: Nope, I still want to tax billionaires out of existence and use that to support your "stupid poors" and your ideal of a ruling class and an underclass with unlimited market exploitation created by birthright of genetics is wrong (again, for the sake of argument, it still doesn't really work this way). "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" and they need more. Economically, Elon Musk should be playing with nightmare-mode level taxation levels, all the "stupid poors" need the difficulty slider backed off for them -- instead we have that nearly reversed. Whatever you call it (leftist/progressive/socialist) isn't founded at all on a rejection of genetics, attacking that gets you nowhere.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think this just us back to the basic questions society has considered for hundreds of years. How to balance of equality of outcomes vs equal treatment. How to enable individuals to develop their productive ability. What quality of life we want to provide with charity to those with low economic productivity. What tax policies achieve these goals and favors the kind economic growth that raises all boats. In my opinion, I think all of the discussions about economic fairness and what people 'deserve' is just a side freakshow distracting from these real questions.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

The problem is tying the idea deserving to be at the top to some imaginary concept of I influence in the first place. All that matters is ability, it doesn't matter how you got it. Personal influence doesn't exist in a scientific world without a soul. People are born with better or worse operating systems and hardware. Their conditions improve or deminnish their OS and function over time. We can strive for a society where the environment produces the best outcomes, but some will always be better than others at any measurable task. Saying that someone is better at something because they have better genes, better upbringing, better schooling, doesn't take away the fact that they are better. The people with the best ability do deserve to be at the top. The only question is what we can do as a society to enable individuals to develop ability to the greatest extent possible.