3 ms·

> "the kind where people get equal choice to do with themselves as they wish?" But where you draw the line of "equal choices"? And WHO will be drawing that lin

by dr_win 15y ago

> "the kind where people get equal choice to do with themselves as they wish?" But where you draw the line of "equal choices"? And WHO will be drawing that line? I'm perfectly aware that there are people living in miserable situation on this planet. But you cannot artificially fix it by making all people instantly "equal". Until we all live "boring cloned existences" each one of us has slightly different priorities and values different things differently. You can maybe improve material life of hard-working child in coal mines but how would you fix a life of a blind person? Those are extremes again, but there is continuum of subtle cases in-between. You simply have to draw the line somewhere and some people will think it is unequal, because according to their values you helped more others which will lead to inequality in their eyes. Is is better to give everybody house or cure for cancer?

sophacles 15y ago
So are you suggesting that because we can't draw a perfect line on your continuum that we should not try to find a better line to draw? Or perhaps that because it can't be perfect, we should abolish it completely? Perhaps we can't fix every single thing, but perhaps we should try. The blind man you mention may or may not be fixable, but we should give him the options we can within the constraints of what is possible. (again back to your continuum -- we can't fix some forms of blindness, so we shouldn't fix the sweatshops either). You are arguing a strawman still. As for different priorities and values, why do you think I talk of the option to make a choice for yourself? That allows each person to actually follow their priorities and values. As for choosing house over cancer cure, this is again a fallacy, this time the false dilemma. Not everyone needs a cure for cancer -- those who don't have cancer. Not everyone needs a house: those who have houses. Some need both, some need neither. Please note: I'm not actually for abdicating money per se, just for some sort of change to the system -- where perhaps random chance plays less of a factor (don't idiot up this statement with your absolutism... less not none) in a person's well being. Where perhaps the energy channeled into greed could in fact be channeled into something far more productive to everyone's existence.

by dr_win 15y ago

sophacles 15y ago

So are you suggesting that because we can't draw a perfect line on your continuum that we should not try to find a better line to draw? Or perhaps that because it can't be perfect, we should abolish it completely? Perhaps we can't fix every single thing, but perhaps we should try. The blind man you mention may or may not be fixable, but we should give him the options we can within the constraints of what is possible. (again back to your continuum -- we can't fix some forms of blindness, so we shouldn't fix the sweatshops either). You are arguing a strawman still. As for different priorities and values, why do you think I talk of the option to make a choice for yourself? That allows each person to actually follow their priorities and values. As for choosing house over cancer cure, this is again a fallacy, this time the false dilemma. Not everyone needs a cure for cancer -- those who don't have cancer. Not everyone needs a house: those who have houses. Some need both, some need neither. Please note: I'm not actually for abdicating money per se, just for some sort of change to the system -- where perhaps random chance plays less of a factor (don't idiot up this statement with your absolutism... less not none) in a person's well being. Where perhaps the energy channeled into greed could in fact be channeled into something far more productive to everyone's existence.