7 ms·

You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which

You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which as you rightly point out isn’t really equal. But it’s the only possibility. Equality of outcome denies free will. [1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a plateau. Pretending that plateau doesn’t exist is one of humanities biggest problems. It’s a costly lie that doesn’t serve anyone but certain professional groups.

silverquiet 3y ago
Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel with Gates; insert any other filthy rich person and imagine it.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever greater impact, I'd be happy as a millionaire like most other people would and stop growing. People who continue working to expand their impact even when they don't need to are rare.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    I think Dennis Ritchie and Linus Torvalds have had a roughly similar impact upon the world with the benefit that I also consider it a positive impact.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    Expanding your area of impact, when it is no longer your technical domain, is to put it mildly, dangerous and often counterproductive.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  “Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable.“ Define justifiable. I would agree with “unfair.” Life is not fair. Is life “justifiable” to you? In nature, there are predators and prey, is that “justifiable”? I like to simplify my thinking too, but your view seems inherently suppose almost superhuman discernment, that you (or other humans individually or collectively) can judge what is justified on a case by case basis without any concrete principals or criteria, and without bias! Doesn’t seem simple to me at all! How to distinguish the bill gateses from the other guys is a problem as old as civilization. There is more law and tax code written on this than you can ever hope to capture in your thinking. Ignoring policy and centuries of human knowledge isn’t “simple” as much as it is ignorance.

silverquiet 3y ago

Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel with Gates; insert any other filthy rich person and imagine it.

Jensson 3y ago
Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever greater impact, I'd be happy as a millionaire like most other people would and stop growing. People who continue working to expand their impact even when they don't need to are rare.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I think Dennis Ritchie and Linus Torvalds have had a roughly similar impact upon the world with the benefit that I also consider it a positive impact.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  Expanding your area of impact, when it is no longer your technical domain, is to put it mildly, dangerous and often counterproductive.
2devnull 3y ago
“Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable.“ Define justifiable. I would agree with “unfair.” Life is not fair. Is life “justifiable” to you? In nature, there are predators and prey, is that “justifiable”? I like to simplify my thinking too, but your view seems inherently suppose almost superhuman discernment, that you (or other humans individually or collectively) can judge what is justified on a case by case basis without any concrete principals or criteria, and without bias! Doesn’t seem simple to me at all! How to distinguish the bill gateses from the other guys is a problem as old as civilization. There is more law and tax code written on this than you can ever hope to capture in your thinking. Ignoring policy and centuries of human knowledge isn’t “simple” as much as it is ignorance.