3 ms·

"Fair" is just an arbitrarily-applied constant in your sentence. Why is meritocratic more "fair" than equitable? Perhaps more precisely, why do you deem merito

"Fair" is just an arbitrarily-applied constant in your sentence. Why is meritocratic more "fair" than equitable? Perhaps more precisely, why do you deem meritocratic to = fair? Someone could just as easily (and supportably) deem equitable to = fair. Hearts!

tomp 3y ago
Because “equity” (communism) requires violence. Taking away from those who create more and giving to those who create less. Something that is non-consensual and requires violence is by definition unfair (unless you’ve a wicked moral compass).
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  I dunno, in the real world, the kind of libertarian society you seem to be advocating for has descended into its own unique form of violence: https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cyber_kinetist 3y ago
  Communism (at least in an ideal Marxist form) has no relation to equity, it’s more of a liberal concept than anything else. People use the term Communism (both upper-case and lower-case) in various ways nowadays, but Marx’s original ideal form of society was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" The ultimate goal is to create an affluent productive society that can provide all amenities for all people, so they can unleash their potentials as individuals without being enslaved by capitalists as wage workers just to survive. And socialism is only an intermediate step before realizing this ideal state, socialism wasn’t intended to be ideal even for the leftists (In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet).
  - srackey 3y ago
    Yes, and this will require violence to achieve (how else can you enforce the “from each” and “to each”?) Communism has been tried. Again and again. The utopian endpoint it tires to get to is not possible. The consistent result is mass death and poverty.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      OTOH systems not going as far as communism, but still with far more equitable outcomes than e.g. US system, have been tried as well and have been quite successful.
    - skulk 3y ago
      The "this will require violence" argument makes no sense. If you live in the US, everything you have is the end result of some horrific violence. Inferring a need for violence to achieve some ideal is a completely useless analysis.
  - okeuro49 3y ago
    > In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet From my knowledge of European history, this is not true. Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production. The difficulty is, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, to steal a phrase. The worker's union movement working inside a capitalist system has brought more benefits for workers, than communism, which proved to kill millions wherever it is attempted.
    - palata 3y ago
      > From my knowledge of European history, this is not true. You will need to elaborate on that. > Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production. Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.
      - 3y ago
- flir 3y ago
  "meritocracy" also requires violence. Unless what you really mean is "might makes right", in which case the violence is kinda baked in.
  - tomp 3y ago
    How so?
    - flir 3y ago
      Well... how do you enforce meritocracy? A pride of lions is meritocratic, in the "might makes right" sense. What definition of "merit" are you ordering your population by?
      - tomp 3y ago
        You don't need to enforce meritocracy. That's the beauty of it, it's based only on mutual consensus and transparency of information (a.k.a. free market). Would you rather go to a doctor who's good at surgeries or one that's bad at surgeries? One that got into medical school because of affirmative action, or one that was discriminated against and still got in (e.g. Asian doctors in the US)? Would you rather go to a car mechanic that's amazing at juggling but bad at fixing cars, or one that's bad at juggling and good at fixing cars? See, the "definition of merit" just takes care of itself (driven by the self-interest of customers).
        flir 3y ago
        > You don't need to enforce meritocracy So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.
        valval 3y ago
        > So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? No, stealing is immoral. > Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit. The system itself doesn’t give anyone anything, the market is free to determine that. A doctor who helps more patients (your arbitrary definition) will face higher demand than one who doesn’t help many patients, since people are free to place the value they see fit on their personal health.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Did the American revolutionary war require violence? Who chose to be violent? Violence is not bad. Violence to oppress is bad. Violence to seek justice is good. That's why the 2nd amendment exists. > Something that is non-consensual and requires violence War is ultimately dispute resolution between two parties, at least one of which, has decided "might makes right." Ukrainian violence is justified and good, while Russian violence is abominable and evil. So it's important to think past words like violence or war or 'take' and instead frame conversation around justice. If a billionaire bribes a supreme court justice to rule that they can pollute drinking water with a chemical that causes cancer, is that violence? A billionaire should not have enough money to corrupt the fabric of society. Extreme wealth inequality is injustice, especially if they use their power to say "we'll crash the economy if you don't bail us out." Taxing the rich and funding social programs while otherwise retaining property rights isn't communism.

tomp 3y ago

Because “equity” (communism) requires violence. Taking away from those who create more and giving to those who create less. Something that is non-consensual and requires violence is by definition unfair (unless you’ve a wicked moral compass).

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
I dunno, in the real world, the kind of libertarian society you seem to be advocating for has descended into its own unique form of violence: https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cyber_kinetist 3y ago
Communism (at least in an ideal Marxist form) has no relation to equity, it’s more of a liberal concept than anything else. People use the term Communism (both upper-case and lower-case) in various ways nowadays, but Marx’s original ideal form of society was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" The ultimate goal is to create an affluent productive society that can provide all amenities for all people, so they can unleash their potentials as individuals without being enslaved by capitalists as wage workers just to survive. And socialism is only an intermediate step before realizing this ideal state, socialism wasn’t intended to be ideal even for the leftists (In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet).
- srackey 3y ago
  Yes, and this will require violence to achieve (how else can you enforce the “from each” and “to each”?) Communism has been tried. Again and again. The utopian endpoint it tires to get to is not possible. The consistent result is mass death and poverty.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    OTOH systems not going as far as communism, but still with far more equitable outcomes than e.g. US system, have been tried as well and have been quite successful.
  - skulk 3y ago
    The "this will require violence" argument makes no sense. If you live in the US, everything you have is the end result of some horrific violence. Inferring a need for violence to achieve some ideal is a completely useless analysis.
- okeuro49 3y ago
  > In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet From my knowledge of European history, this is not true. Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production. The difficulty is, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, to steal a phrase. The worker's union movement working inside a capitalist system has brought more benefits for workers, than communism, which proved to kill millions wherever it is attempted.
  - palata 3y ago
    > From my knowledge of European history, this is not true. You will need to elaborate on that. > Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production. Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.
    - 3y ago
flir 3y ago
"meritocracy" also requires violence. Unless what you really mean is "might makes right", in which case the violence is kinda baked in.
- tomp 3y ago
  How so?
  - flir 3y ago
    Well... how do you enforce meritocracy? A pride of lions is meritocratic, in the "might makes right" sense. What definition of "merit" are you ordering your population by?
    - tomp 3y ago
      You don't need to enforce meritocracy. That's the beauty of it, it's based only on mutual consensus and transparency of information (a.k.a. free market). Would you rather go to a doctor who's good at surgeries or one that's bad at surgeries? One that got into medical school because of affirmative action, or one that was discriminated against and still got in (e.g. Asian doctors in the US)? Would you rather go to a car mechanic that's amazing at juggling but bad at fixing cars, or one that's bad at juggling and good at fixing cars? See, the "definition of merit" just takes care of itself (driven by the self-interest of customers).
      - flir 3y ago
        > You don't need to enforce meritocracy So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.
        valval 3y ago
        > So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you? No, stealing is immoral. > Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit. The system itself doesn’t give anyone anything, the market is free to determine that. A doctor who helps more patients (your arbitrary definition) will face higher demand than one who doesn’t help many patients, since people are free to place the value they see fit on their personal health.
hayst4ck 3y ago
Did the American revolutionary war require violence? Who chose to be violent? Violence is not bad. Violence to oppress is bad. Violence to seek justice is good. That's why the 2nd amendment exists. > Something that is non-consensual and requires violence War is ultimately dispute resolution between two parties, at least one of which, has decided "might makes right." Ukrainian violence is justified and good, while Russian violence is abominable and evil. So it's important to think past words like violence or war or 'take' and instead frame conversation around justice. If a billionaire bribes a supreme court justice to rule that they can pollute drinking water with a chemical that causes cancer, is that violence? A billionaire should not have enough money to corrupt the fabric of society. Extreme wealth inequality is injustice, especially if they use their power to say "we'll crash the economy if you don't bail us out." Taxing the rich and funding social programs while otherwise retaining property rights isn't communism.