3 ms·

Yeah, your equality really is just jealousy. It's your feeling that the situation is unfair. But there's no principle of nature that says that things must be fa

Yeah, your equality really is just jealousy. It's your feeling that the situation is unfair. But there's no principle of nature that says that things must be fair. For me, if I can improve the lot of everyone by at least X%, but doing so means that some few people will actually get a benefit of 2X%, that's a darn good deal. Withholding the potential X% from those poor people just because it's not fair seems rather cruel. We may have the luxury of wanting things to be fair, but there are some people for whom those X% will make all the difference.

pixelatedindex 10mo ago
> Yeah, your equality really is just jealousy. It's your feeling that the situation is unfair. But there's no principle of nature that says that things must be fair. By that logic why have equality for anything? Why even have civil rights if you can just be like “that’s just the way it is, why should you be able to vote? I’ll vote for the best of all our interests”. It doesn’t work that way. > For me, if I can improve the lot of everyone by at least X%, but doing so means that some few people will actually get a benefit of 2X%, that's a darn good deal. In an altruistic society, maybe. But economic theory is based on the idea that everyone will try to do what’s best for them and not for the masses. Congress sets the laws - so they are more interested in benefiting themselves than anyone else. Therefore we need a forcing function, and one way would be to clamp down on insider trading.