3 ms·
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 th
by Y_Y 2y 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 2y agoMy 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).