8 ms·

Correct. When you treat equality as equality of outcome, you necessarily destroy: 1. Equality of effort. 2. Equality of opportunity. 3. Equality of personal

Correct. When you treat equality as equality of outcome, you necessarily destroy: 1. Equality of effort. 2. Equality of opportunity. 3. Equality of personal freedom. 4. Equality of justice. All of these are the right ones to defend while accepting equality of outcome will necessarily force you to embrace behavioral engineering: the industrialization of being manipulative at scale. Basically the wet dream of every power grabbing seeker and wannabe authoritarians in disguise.

goodpoint 4y ago
> the wet dream of every power grabbing seeker and wannabe authoritarians Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome. History shown many times that past dictatorships made people in power very wealthy very quickly.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Why is that an impediment? You cannot expect consistency from an inconsistent ideology.
- tromp 4y ago
  You misread the parent poster, who noted that power grabbers would also like to employ industrialized manipulation at scale, although obviously for purposes other than reaching equal outcomes.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome. Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, acting on behalf of all the people. c.f. Stalinist/Maoist mode
  - vkou 4y ago
    Under our current framework, power consolidates in sometimes-feuding, often colluding oligarchs and large corporations. It is also, of course, all done in the name of the people.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Which prevents any wannabe Stalin or Mao from doing much, since everyone is busy feuding instead of pulling together to accomplish a disaster more effectively. Everything is always done in the name of ‘the people’ if it helps sell the lie. Always has been that way.
      - vkou 4y ago
        Instead of one tinpot tyrant in your life, you have a dozen, each of which wants a pound of flesh from you. Most of the feuding they do is not with each other, but with their subjects. Capital owners usually act in unison when it comes to their class interests, it's the rest of us that are busy being divided by culture wars and the gaffe of the week.
        lazide 4y ago
        I take it you’ve never had this discussion with someone who has dealt with actual tyrants? No one who was under their sphere of influence would classify Stalin or Mao as tinpot. They killed nearly 100 million of their own people between the two of them. Khmer Rouge being a third example. I’ll take squabbling (but still competing) landlords over ‘great leaps forward’ or holodomor any day of the week.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Capitalism concentrates power within oligarchs. Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats. They don't even attempt to solve the problem. The decentralisation of power isn't even being considered.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      That's correct if you replace "Communism" with "authoritarianism".
      - Slamidan 4y ago
        In reality they have proven to be the same. As studied, and as the logic would follow the elite simply transfer from system to system as performance disparities persist through the generations because of genetics. Through revolutions under different systems tracked family lines out performed others regardless of system. A look at "communist" china. Persistence through Revolutions http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_papers/pdffiles/dp20722.pdf http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_pap...
        goodpoint 4y ago
        Huh? My point was that "Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats" should be "Authoritarianism concentrates power within bureaucrats". That's pretty much by definition.
- lazide 4y ago
  No, it’s used as a lure by power hungry authoritarians because the only way such a system can actually exist, is if it is forced. So whoever promises the wonderland has to get ultimate power, of course, to guide everyone to utopia. It’s literally what keeps happening with communist countries.
Beldin 4y ago
Isn't the point of equality that systemic inequalities in these 4 points cannot exclusively be addressed by addressing them in isolation? That's what I thought at any rate - that correcting the system without touching outcomes is a much slower, less effective way to try to address inequalities. Then again, that's gut feeling, so i might be wrong.
- lazide 4y ago
  Trying to just force outcomes without actually having the people learn how to be better destroys the entire system. Every system, really.
- Slamidan 4y ago
  The problem is they are always addressed in isolation of the most dominant factor which is genetics.
aeternum 4y ago
Doesn't equality of opportunity also destroy equality of effort? If some subset of parents work super hard primarily to give their kids a better life, you must either subvert the effort of the parents and give all kids an equal chance or must admit that kids do not have equality of opportunity.
- lazide 4y ago
  No. If the efforts those parents are putting in makes those kids fundamentally better at whatever is important for success, than those kids will (statistically) do better than their peers. If everyone had an opportunity to do that same education/training/effort, but chose not to do so, that isn’t an issue with opportunity.
  - aeternum 4y ago
    Kids born to a well-off set of parents can absolutely provide opportunities that other kids do not have access to. Equality of opportunity and equality of effort just can't coexist unless we create some kind of dystopia where kids are taken away at birth and raised in actual similar conditions. Under equality of effort, additional effort produces rewards/benefits which by definition produces inequality. If we allow any of that inequality to pass to one's children, then clearly you have unequal opportunity when looking at that generation of children.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > Equality of opportunity and equality of effort just can't coexist unless we create some kind of dystopia where kids are taken away at birth and raised in actual similar conditions. Perfect equality of opportunity is certainly impossible, but we can do much better than the US system. For instance, if all schools were funded equally and given good facilities and skilled teachers and all kids regardless of wealth went to these well-run public schools, opportunity would be quite fair. See e.g. Finland. The US has the worst possible system in this regard. Poor kids live in poor neighborhoods, where schools have no funding and (often) worst teachers (and even the great ones are so overworked that they can't provide the attention they want). Classes are overcrowded and administrators abuse the children with all kinds of zero-tolerance horrors. Meanwhile the rich kids go to top private schools where the kids are given every opportunity to learn and also make connections with their future CxO peers.
unclebucknasty 4y ago
How is "equality of outcome" defined? If multi-generational advantage contributed to a massive wealth gap and head start, is it considered seeking equality of outcome to create policy that seeks to help the previously disadvantaged "catch up"? Said the other way, is it true equality of opportunity if this history is ignored? Seems odd to suddenly say, "ok, now the playing field is level, so we're all good".
Georgelemental 4y ago
This is broadly correct, but note that the only way to get perfect equality of opportunity is to have no opportunity for anyone, because if people have the opportunity to build up wealth that their children can inherit, then there will be unequal opportunity in the next generation. (And preventing people from passing on their wealth to their children in any way will destroy their motivation to work).
mcv 4y ago
Equality of outcome is an impossible red herring that I'm surprised keeps occupying so many people. You cannot have equality of outcome and still let people make their own decisions. Equality of Opportunity is the important one we should focus on, and that's going to be hard enough, but every step we manage to get closer, will empower more people and give them more freedom to make their own decisions. Let's just forget about equality of outcome. There is no such thing.
- smaryjerry 4y ago
  This is very true. Equality of outcome is always cherry picked on what is causing the outcome as well to make the argument. For example, if one worker completes 10 items/hour and another completes 1 item/hour. You would expect the higher producer to get paid up to 10 times as much in an equal society. The issue is many seem to believe 1 hour worked is 1 hour, so they should get equal pay or equality of outcome. Equality of outcomes is even less fair than portrayed when measured in hours/money and not rates of productivity. The problem is productivity is extremely difficult to measure in a lot of cases. If one person spent 2 hours coming up with an an idea that saves everyone in a 20 person company 1 hour a day for the entire year and another put in 60 hours a week - it’s obvious that the person who worked 2 hours was more productive for the entire year than the person who worked 60 hours a week. We just can’t measure that and instead use flat single variables that don’t reflect actual productivity.

goodpoint 4y ago

> the wet dream of every power grabbing seeker and wannabe authoritarians Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome. History shown many times that past dictatorships made people in power very wealthy very quickly.

teakettle42 4y ago
Why is that an impediment? You cannot expect consistency from an inconsistent ideology.
tromp 4y ago
You misread the parent poster, who noted that power grabbers would also like to employ industrialized manipulation at scale, although obviously for purposes other than reaching equal outcomes.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome. Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, acting on behalf of all the people. c.f. Stalinist/Maoist mode
- vkou 4y ago
  Under our current framework, power consolidates in sometimes-feuding, often colluding oligarchs and large corporations. It is also, of course, all done in the name of the people.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Which prevents any wannabe Stalin or Mao from doing much, since everyone is busy feuding instead of pulling together to accomplish a disaster more effectively. Everything is always done in the name of ‘the people’ if it helps sell the lie. Always has been that way.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Instead of one tinpot tyrant in your life, you have a dozen, each of which wants a pound of flesh from you. Most of the feuding they do is not with each other, but with their subjects. Capital owners usually act in unison when it comes to their class interests, it's the rest of us that are busy being divided by culture wars and the gaffe of the week.
      - lazide 4y ago
        I take it you’ve never had this discussion with someone who has dealt with actual tyrants? No one who was under their sphere of influence would classify Stalin or Mao as tinpot. They killed nearly 100 million of their own people between the two of them. Khmer Rouge being a third example. I’ll take squabbling (but still competing) landlords over ‘great leaps forward’ or holodomor any day of the week.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Capitalism concentrates power within oligarchs. Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats. They don't even attempt to solve the problem. The decentralisation of power isn't even being considered.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    That's correct if you replace "Communism" with "authoritarianism".
    - Slamidan 4y ago
      In reality they have proven to be the same. As studied, and as the logic would follow the elite simply transfer from system to system as performance disparities persist through the generations because of genetics. Through revolutions under different systems tracked family lines out performed others regardless of system. A look at "communist" china. Persistence through Revolutions http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_papers/pdffiles/dp20722.pdf http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_pap...
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        Huh? My point was that "Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats" should be "Authoritarianism concentrates power within bureaucrats". That's pretty much by definition.
lazide 4y ago
No, it’s used as a lure by power hungry authoritarians because the only way such a system can actually exist, is if it is forced. So whoever promises the wonderland has to get ultimate power, of course, to guide everyone to utopia. It’s literally what keeps happening with communist countries.

Beldin 4y ago

Isn't the point of equality that systemic inequalities in these 4 points cannot exclusively be addressed by addressing them in isolation? That's what I thought at any rate - that correcting the system without touching outcomes is a much slower, less effective way to try to address inequalities. Then again, that's gut feeling, so i might be wrong.

lazide 4y ago
Trying to just force outcomes without actually having the people learn how to be better destroys the entire system. Every system, really.
Slamidan 4y ago
The problem is they are always addressed in isolation of the most dominant factor which is genetics.

aeternum 4y ago

Doesn't equality of opportunity also destroy equality of effort? If some subset of parents work super hard primarily to give their kids a better life, you must either subvert the effort of the parents and give all kids an equal chance or must admit that kids do not have equality of opportunity.

lazide 4y ago
No. If the efforts those parents are putting in makes those kids fundamentally better at whatever is important for success, than those kids will (statistically) do better than their peers. If everyone had an opportunity to do that same education/training/effort, but chose not to do so, that isn’t an issue with opportunity.
- aeternum 4y ago
  Kids born to a well-off set of parents can absolutely provide opportunities that other kids do not have access to. Equality of opportunity and equality of effort just can't coexist unless we create some kind of dystopia where kids are taken away at birth and raised in actual similar conditions. Under equality of effort, additional effort produces rewards/benefits which by definition produces inequality. If we allow any of that inequality to pass to one's children, then clearly you have unequal opportunity when looking at that generation of children.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Equality of opportunity and equality of effort just can't coexist unless we create some kind of dystopia where kids are taken away at birth and raised in actual similar conditions. Perfect equality of opportunity is certainly impossible, but we can do much better than the US system. For instance, if all schools were funded equally and given good facilities and skilled teachers and all kids regardless of wealth went to these well-run public schools, opportunity would be quite fair. See e.g. Finland. The US has the worst possible system in this regard. Poor kids live in poor neighborhoods, where schools have no funding and (often) worst teachers (and even the great ones are so overworked that they can't provide the attention they want). Classes are overcrowded and administrators abuse the children with all kinds of zero-tolerance horrors. Meanwhile the rich kids go to top private schools where the kids are given every opportunity to learn and also make connections with their future CxO peers.

unclebucknasty 4y ago

How is "equality of outcome" defined? If multi-generational advantage contributed to a massive wealth gap and head start, is it considered seeking equality of outcome to create policy that seeks to help the previously disadvantaged "catch up"? Said the other way, is it true equality of opportunity if this history is ignored? Seems odd to suddenly say, "ok, now the playing field is level, so we're all good".

Georgelemental 4y ago

This is broadly correct, but note that the only way to get perfect equality of opportunity is to have no opportunity for anyone, because if people have the opportunity to build up wealth that their children can inherit, then there will be unequal opportunity in the next generation. (And preventing people from passing on their wealth to their children in any way will destroy their motivation to work).

mcv 4y ago

Equality of outcome is an impossible red herring that I'm surprised keeps occupying so many people. You cannot have equality of outcome and still let people make their own decisions. Equality of Opportunity is the important one we should focus on, and that's going to be hard enough, but every step we manage to get closer, will empower more people and give them more freedom to make their own decisions. Let's just forget about equality of outcome. There is no such thing.

smaryjerry 4y ago
This is very true. Equality of outcome is always cherry picked on what is causing the outcome as well to make the argument. For example, if one worker completes 10 items/hour and another completes 1 item/hour. You would expect the higher producer to get paid up to 10 times as much in an equal society. The issue is many seem to believe 1 hour worked is 1 hour, so they should get equal pay or equality of outcome. Equality of outcomes is even less fair than portrayed when measured in hours/money and not rates of productivity. The problem is productivity is extremely difficult to measure in a lot of cases. If one person spent 2 hours coming up with an an idea that saves everyone in a 20 person company 1 hour a day for the entire year and another put in 60 hours a week - it’s obvious that the person who worked 2 hours was more productive for the entire year than the person who worked 60 hours a week. We just can’t measure that and instead use flat single variables that don’t reflect actual productivity.