4 ms·

You absolutely do care about equality. There are some places where absolute standards are fine, but when we discuss social contracts - equality is fundamental.

You absolutely do care about equality. There are some places where absolute standards are fine, but when we discuss social contracts - equality is fundamental. You are not operating as a solitary individual, you are operating within a society that both takes and gives to you, and ensuring that social contracts remain fair is fundamental to keeping that society as a whole alive and functional. ex - how would you feel if the government issues everyone rebates on taxes. you receive 1 dollar. Everyone else receives 100k. Or the government funds schools - your kids receive 1 free book, every other child receives a free college education. Or the government increases park allocations - you are given a 5ftx5ft greenspace, the neighborhood over receives a 10 acre maintained park. Absolute standards are bogus when we are discussing the allocation of group resources. You paid in, you should be monitoring how that resource is paid out. To be oblivious is to essentially be abused. We should care deeply about wealth inequality in society at large. We should not compare ourselves to our neighbors in individual circumstances. They are different things.

renewiltord 2y ago
I see. You oppose redistribution through the government. That's a view I can be sympathetic to. If taxes were near zero then this would be less of a problem. Fair enough.
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  Redistribution is fine - being aware of how that distribution occurs is important, though. Otherwise you end up with situations where "redistribution" essentially becomes handouts to those most influential with the ones making the distribution decisions, instead of meaningful improvements to society as a whole. Is it a good thing if Besos gets a rocket every minute if that means climate change destroys my local community? Is it a good thing if we excessively bail out companies that make poor decisions at tax payer expense? Is it a good thing to promote school systems that ignore and underfund certain neighborhoods along racial lines? --- My argument is not that redistribution is bad in itself, my argument is that social groups depend on "fairness" to operate. And those definitions are certainly challenging (one person's fair might be another person's horror story). But they are critical to how a society decides to exist and cooperate. Like - this isn't a new idea... it's what a social contract is. I also don't sign contracts without reading them, and an educated populace should care about what's in the fine print. It's not about making sure I get personal wealth or advantages from that contract, it's about making sure I find that contract morally acceptable. Because if enough people reach that stage where they don't... you have a civil war or a rebellion. They will try to write a new contract.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Taxes is not the only way redistribution happens. In some countries, there are no laws against how much credit card fees can be. In those countries, a small fraction of the wealth of poor people is transferred to rich people [1]. In other countries, the fees are limited to small values, so this wealth transfer happens at a much smaller scale or doesn't happen at all. Or a government can license a coal plant in some area [1], destroying the air quality and health outcomes of people in the area, while most of the wealth generated by the plant goes to the investors. [1] Because credit card companies charge fees inversely proportional to expenses. And give rewards to those who can spend more. [2] Or worse, in an adjoining area far enough away to commute for jobs, but still in the same air shed.

renewiltord 2y ago

I see. You oppose redistribution through the government. That's a view I can be sympathetic to. If taxes were near zero then this would be less of a problem. Fair enough.

horsawlarway 2y ago
Redistribution is fine - being aware of how that distribution occurs is important, though. Otherwise you end up with situations where "redistribution" essentially becomes handouts to those most influential with the ones making the distribution decisions, instead of meaningful improvements to society as a whole. Is it a good thing if Besos gets a rocket every minute if that means climate change destroys my local community? Is it a good thing if we excessively bail out companies that make poor decisions at tax payer expense? Is it a good thing to promote school systems that ignore and underfund certain neighborhoods along racial lines? --- My argument is not that redistribution is bad in itself, my argument is that social groups depend on "fairness" to operate. And those definitions are certainly challenging (one person's fair might be another person's horror story). But they are critical to how a society decides to exist and cooperate. Like - this isn't a new idea... it's what a social contract is. I also don't sign contracts without reading them, and an educated populace should care about what's in the fine print. It's not about making sure I get personal wealth or advantages from that contract, it's about making sure I find that contract morally acceptable. Because if enough people reach that stage where they don't... you have a civil war or a rebellion. They will try to write a new contract.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Taxes is not the only way redistribution happens. In some countries, there are no laws against how much credit card fees can be. In those countries, a small fraction of the wealth of poor people is transferred to rich people [1]. In other countries, the fees are limited to small values, so this wealth transfer happens at a much smaller scale or doesn't happen at all. Or a government can license a coal plant in some area [1], destroying the air quality and health outcomes of people in the area, while most of the wealth generated by the plant goes to the investors. [1] Because credit card companies charge fees inversely proportional to expenses. And give rewards to those who can spend more. [2] Or worse, in an adjoining area far enough away to commute for jobs, but still in the same air shed.