4 ms·

Why should a rich person be able to experience luxury more often than a poor person? Wouldn't it be more fair to allocate the seats randomly between all people

Why should a rich person be able to experience luxury more often than a poor person? Wouldn't it be more fair to allocate the seats randomly between all people that'd like to be there? Allocating a scare resource so that some people can use it multiple times while others can never use it isn't exactly democratic.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Democracy is a system of governance, attempting to use votes to provide equal representation to people. The mechanism for allocating resources is a different topic, as is determining what is and is not “fair”. >Why should a rich person be able to experience luxury more often than a poor person? Because that is the benefit of being rich. Perhaps this question is better phrased as “Why should there be a wealth/income gap greater than <$x>?”
jmye 3y ago
Why should everyone have perfectly equal access to non-necessities? What, specifically, is “democratic” about making sure poor people can also get reservations at restaurants? Should everything in limited quantity be given away in a pure lottery?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kuschku 3y ago
  By what measure do you or I deserve more than poor people? Every society has some measure for who deserves more and who deserves less. The Nazis determined it by ethnicity. Other societies determined it by whether you were born into noble families. Our society today determines it by wealth, which in the end is just a proxy for ancestry and luck. A truly fair system would allocate resources only based on factors entirely under your own control. It's not fair if you're punished for being born into the wrong family. It follows that using wealth as a measure is definitely a bad choice.
  - jmye 3y ago
    Boiling wealth down to solely luck or family is a wild leap, and I’m not sure how you’d support it with actual evidence. Counter examples are trivial. I’m also still not clear why money is a bad tool for acquiring luxury resources. We’re not talking about necessary food and shelter, we’re talking about a high end restaurant. Is there something wrong with saving money for things I want? Why should I have to enter a lottery for everything? Maybe I end up with a trip to Disney World, which I don’t want, instead of a nice date night with my wife, which I do want. Is there some reason you think that’s a more desirable situation or more fair? It feels like a weird way to try to be equitable for things that will never, ever be equitable, and a strange, unsupportable justification for it.
    - kuschku 3y ago
      You may have misunderstood me — I didn't say luck or family is the only source of wealth. But in a just world, luck or family should have as little influence on your allocation of resources as possible. Wealth amassed through working and saving your wage is a just and fair system in my opinion. It's still biased as not all wages are fairly negotiated, but it's the most fair solution today. My vision for the world is a socially democratic one — everyone is guaranteed a basic level of survival, similar in terms of housing, medical care and food access to what you'd get from a university dorm and cafeteria. Beyond that, people can gain wealth from their own work and save it up. If you'd rather eat at a cheap restaurant every week, or a michelin star restaurant every few years, should be up to you. But your wealth and your access to resources should come from your own work and not the luck of being born into the right family, the right ethnicity, the right country, or the right caste.
  - popcalc 3y ago
    >It follows that using wealth as a measure [for deserving] is definitely a bad choice. It's not a choice. Would you rather it be wealth or violence? As civilizations mature, the power that happens to be encapsulated in a tribal (read gang) leader's threat of physical violence and banishment transmogrifies into debt obligations once a strong civil law foundation is in place. >By what measure do you or I deserve more than poor people? Who decides who deserves what? Let me know and we'll start lobbying next Monday ;) “Don't you understand that it's a question of power, and money means power. It's as simple as that.” - John Deuss
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vasdae 3y ago
>Why should a rich person be able to experience luxury more often than a poor person? Why would you work harder to get rich if you don't get anything for it?
- FactKnower69 3y ago
  >Why would you work harder to get rich if you don't get anything for it? this comment wouldn't be nonsense if we lived in a political economy where money came exclusively from working hard / hazardous / difficult jobs, but in case you forgot, plenty of rich people have never worked a day in their lives and either lucked into an inheritance or sit on their ass and cash rent / dividend checks
  - Consultant32452 3y ago
    The only reason I acquire wealth is to improve the lives of my children and grandchildren relative to their peers. If that option was taken away, I would have no reason to do anything but the bare minimum.
    - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
      This is such an utterly insane position that I find myself doubting that you are being honest here. It suggests you don't actually care at all about the wellbeing of your children, and only about your family's status. Imagine a scenario where you could banish your children to a hellish, poverty-stricken existence -- but their peers would be even worse off than that. Alternatively, you could give your children a happy, comfortable life, but all of their peers would be equal to them. Are you seriously suggesting that you would choose the first option, not the second one?
      - Consultant32452 3y ago
        Your question implies a central planning of allocation of resources which we know from history results in exactly the hellish abject poverty you were so concerned about. Market economies full of rationally self interested people create the best life outcomes for everyone around. We are ALL better off if we are all in friendly competition to live the best lives possible.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Why are linkedin posts spreading everywhere. Why does a rich person only has access to any asset you are selling. Could I get it for free?

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Democracy is a system of governance, attempting to use votes to provide equal representation to people. The mechanism for allocating resources is a different topic, as is determining what is and is not “fair”. >Why should a rich person be able to experience luxury more often than a poor person? Because that is the benefit of being rich. Perhaps this question is better phrased as “Why should there be a wealth/income gap greater than <$x>?”

jmye 3y ago

Why should everyone have perfectly equal access to non-necessities? What, specifically, is “democratic” about making sure poor people can also get reservations at restaurants? Should everything in limited quantity be given away in a pure lottery?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kuschku 3y ago
By what measure do you or I deserve more than poor people? Every society has some measure for who deserves more and who deserves less. The Nazis determined it by ethnicity. Other societies determined it by whether you were born into noble families. Our society today determines it by wealth, which in the end is just a proxy for ancestry and luck. A truly fair system would allocate resources only based on factors entirely under your own control. It's not fair if you're punished for being born into the wrong family. It follows that using wealth as a measure is definitely a bad choice.
- jmye 3y ago
  Boiling wealth down to solely luck or family is a wild leap, and I’m not sure how you’d support it with actual evidence. Counter examples are trivial. I’m also still not clear why money is a bad tool for acquiring luxury resources. We’re not talking about necessary food and shelter, we’re talking about a high end restaurant. Is there something wrong with saving money for things I want? Why should I have to enter a lottery for everything? Maybe I end up with a trip to Disney World, which I don’t want, instead of a nice date night with my wife, which I do want. Is there some reason you think that’s a more desirable situation or more fair? It feels like a weird way to try to be equitable for things that will never, ever be equitable, and a strange, unsupportable justification for it.
  - kuschku 3y ago
    You may have misunderstood me — I didn't say luck or family is the only source of wealth. But in a just world, luck or family should have as little influence on your allocation of resources as possible. Wealth amassed through working and saving your wage is a just and fair system in my opinion. It's still biased as not all wages are fairly negotiated, but it's the most fair solution today. My vision for the world is a socially democratic one — everyone is guaranteed a basic level of survival, similar in terms of housing, medical care and food access to what you'd get from a university dorm and cafeteria. Beyond that, people can gain wealth from their own work and save it up. If you'd rather eat at a cheap restaurant every week, or a michelin star restaurant every few years, should be up to you. But your wealth and your access to resources should come from your own work and not the luck of being born into the right family, the right ethnicity, the right country, or the right caste.
- popcalc 3y ago
  >It follows that using wealth as a measure [for deserving] is definitely a bad choice. It's not a choice. Would you rather it be wealth or violence? As civilizations mature, the power that happens to be encapsulated in a tribal (read gang) leader's threat of physical violence and banishment transmogrifies into debt obligations once a strong civil law foundation is in place. >By what measure do you or I deserve more than poor people? Who decides who deserves what? Let me know and we'll start lobbying next Monday ;) “Don't you understand that it's a question of power, and money means power. It's as simple as that.” - John Deuss

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

vasdae 3y ago

>Why should a rich person be able to experience luxury more often than a poor person? Why would you work harder to get rich if you don't get anything for it?

FactKnower69 3y ago
>Why would you work harder to get rich if you don't get anything for it? this comment wouldn't be nonsense if we lived in a political economy where money came exclusively from working hard / hazardous / difficult jobs, but in case you forgot, plenty of rich people have never worked a day in their lives and either lucked into an inheritance or sit on their ass and cash rent / dividend checks
- Consultant32452 3y ago
  The only reason I acquire wealth is to improve the lives of my children and grandchildren relative to their peers. If that option was taken away, I would have no reason to do anything but the bare minimum.
  - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
    This is such an utterly insane position that I find myself doubting that you are being honest here. It suggests you don't actually care at all about the wellbeing of your children, and only about your family's status. Imagine a scenario where you could banish your children to a hellish, poverty-stricken existence -- but their peers would be even worse off than that. Alternatively, you could give your children a happy, comfortable life, but all of their peers would be equal to them. Are you seriously suggesting that you would choose the first option, not the second one?
    - Consultant32452 3y ago
      Your question implies a central planning of allocation of resources which we know from history results in exactly the hellish abject poverty you were so concerned about. Market economies full of rationally self interested people create the best life outcomes for everyone around. We are ALL better off if we are all in friendly competition to live the best lives possible.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

Why are linkedin posts spreading everywhere. Why does a rich person only has access to any asset you are selling. Could I get it for free?