4 ms·

Inevitability and naturalness are not valid arguments for anything, unless you think naturalness has intrinsic value. You probably don't, because then you'd be

by TFYS 1y ago

Inevitability and naturalness are not valid arguments for anything, unless you think naturalness has intrinsic value. You probably don't, because then you'd be against most things humans do these days. Diseases are inevitable and natural, yet you don't see anyone rational using those facts as arguments against cures. You also seem to assume that inequality has benefits (rain is good), but we haven't really had a truly equal society since we started farming. The attempts at communism were just as if not more unequal as anything we have today. We don't know what it would be like, we just assume and we just believe the ones benefiting from inequality when they tell us how everything would fall apart if we tried to pursue such a thing. Any amount of inequality can be used as leverage to gain more power and increase inequality, so there's no way to have any natural equilibrium of inequality. People who have the most power will always seek more and be in the best position to get it. We need true equality to have an equilibrium.

Y_Y 1y ago
I appreciate your points, and you correctly assume that I'm not treating naturality as an intrinsic good. You may already appreciate this point, but I think that even without having a modern example of a truly equal society we can reason about what it might be like. Specifically I believe that it's been well argued (though I don't have a reference to hand) that wealth equality is an unstable equilibrium. It should follow from the tendency of inequality exacerbate itself, as you mention. Of course you can make a the equilibrium stable with a sufficient restoring force, but I haven't been convinced that such a thing is possible. I would be glad to hear ideas on that though (maybe income/wealth tax with negative rates below the average and then a sharp increase?).
- TFYS 1y ago
  My belief is that our inability to make good decisions collectively is what causes inequality to arise. Large groups of people don't have any way of making decisions beyond very simple ones with obvious answers. Because of this the group must give decision-making power to a smaller group, and the rise of inequality begins. Before we can create an equal society without forcing it in some way, we need to figure out a system of decision-making that doesn't have to centralize power and can produce high quality decisions. Throughout history this has been impossible, but I think now with current technology it could be done if we put enough effort into it. A decision-making process in which anyone can participate, and which somehow makes sure participants have the required knowledge to make good decisions (or gathers all knowledge from participants and can figure out the good, relevant parts of it).

by TFYS 1y ago

Y_Y 1y ago

I appreciate your points, and you correctly assume that I'm not treating naturality as an intrinsic good. You may already appreciate this point, but I think that even without having a modern example of a truly equal society we can reason about what it might be like. Specifically I believe that it's been well argued (though I don't have a reference to hand) that wealth equality is an unstable equilibrium. It should follow from the tendency of inequality exacerbate itself, as you mention. Of course you can make a the equilibrium stable with a sufficient restoring force, but I haven't been convinced that such a thing is possible. I would be glad to hear ideas on that though (maybe income/wealth tax with negative rates below the average and then a sharp increase?).

TFYS 1y ago
My belief is that our inability to make good decisions collectively is what causes inequality to arise. Large groups of people don't have any way of making decisions beyond very simple ones with obvious answers. Because of this the group must give decision-making power to a smaller group, and the rise of inequality begins. Before we can create an equal society without forcing it in some way, we need to figure out a system of decision-making that doesn't have to centralize power and can produce high quality decisions. Throughout history this has been impossible, but I think now with current technology it could be done if we put enough effort into it. A decision-making process in which anyone can participate, and which somehow makes sure participants have the required knowledge to make good decisions (or gathers all knowledge from participants and can figure out the good, relevant parts of it).