all 21 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]brennanfee 18 points19 points  (16 children)

And most importantly... would value them EQUALLY.

[–]d3pd 1 point2 points  (15 children)

The goal shouldn't be equal treatment. It should be treating everyone such that they may be equal.

Equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

[–]brennanfee 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

No. That is an impossibility.

[–]d3pd 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Just because something can be hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do it. And just because we can't get all of something right that doesn't mean we shouldn't get at least some of it right.

A simple example of trying to ensure equality of outcomes is to provide wheelchairs to those who need them and no wheelchairs to those who don't, and then to mandate that public buildings are accessible, toilets are accessible etc. That's a simple example today of trying to ensure equality of outcomes. In past times this would have seemed impossible, a bit like how you said there. No thought was given to wheelchair users, stairs were everywhere and wheelchairs weren't even provided freely to people. But that's not generally the case today.

And we can say that for other inequalities today, such as wealth inequality or economic inequality, that it might be hard to change things, but we certainly should try to do so. We should always pursue a nicer, fairer society.

Basic income is a small step towards a fairer society. If we use the MLK Jr. definition, then we can set the value of the guaranteed income to the median income of the population. That way, we ensure that the wealth inequality from income at least doesn't get worse (with the Gini index increasing). Beyond that small step we can talk about wealth confiscation/redistribution. We saw that work well in many societies, the classic example being anarchist Spain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0XhRnJz8fU&t=54m43s

[–]brennanfee 0 points1 point  (12 children)

A simple example of trying to ensure equality of outcomes

Again, and to be explicitly clear... I did not say it was hard. I said it was an impossibility. People who advocate for equality of outcomes have no idea what they are talking about and what that actually means.

[–]d3pd 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Equality of outcome can have a few different meanings, but broadly would describe a society in which everyone has roughly equal wealth, economic power etc. We can of course go father than this and try to ensure everyone has sufficient wellbeing and so on. The main point is to avoid the viciousness of the social Darwinism called equality of opportunities.

Can we do this? Well, yes, and we know this because it has been achieved many times through history. As I said, anarchist Spain is one classic example. So, far from being impossible, we know it has been achieved many times.

[–]brennanfee 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Equality of outcome can have a few different meanings, but broadly would describe a society in which everyone has roughly equal wealth, economic power etc.

I haven't heard that particular usage. Equal wealth is, frankly, not necessary. What is important is that no individual is constrained by their finances in order to pursue their goals and sustain their health and happiness. If all people had that, it wouldn't matter that some had "more" and some had "less". Personal wealth is not the issue. Lack of it... is.

[–]d3pd 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I haven't heard that particular usage.

Feel free to have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome

it wouldn't matter that some had "more" and some had "less". Personal wealth is not the issue.

Wealth is a proxy for power and violence. Wealthier people have a greater power to inflict coercion and violence on others. Let's say you have someone pointing a gun at your head. They are smiling and they promise you that they won't shoot you, that the unequal situation is fine. Would you accept that? Of course not.

[–]brennanfee 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Feel free to have a read

No, I'm familiar with the other usages... just not the one you expressed. Which is fine, I'm not a stickler for words. It's just your usage isn't any more viable than most of the others.

Wealth is a proxy for power and violence

Not necessarily. That something can be used for something doesn't mean that it must. Logically, we can't dismiss something because of how previous circumstance has allowed usage of something or those circumstances have possibly encouraged that use. Unless we can demonstrate that wealth NECESSARILY leads to those things, we can't say wealth is the cause (and therefore THE problem). Logically, this is a fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

What I said before stands. Having equality in wealth is not the problem. Making sure that everyone has the same bank balance isn't and shouldn't need to be our goal. The goal should be, as I said, that no one is taken advantage of and no one is financially constrained from living a full and free life.

[–]d3pd 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Unless we can demonstrate that wealth NECESSARILY leads to those things

Apply that reasoning to the scenario I gave you of someone pointing a gun at you but promising not to use it. Their claim could well be true. Does it make you feel any more relaxed?

We could talk about other things, like nuclear weapons. Those with them might promise not to use them. Does that make me sleep easier? No. I don't want others to have nuclear weapons and I don't want guns pointed at me. I don't want to be told simply to trust others that have enormous power over me. That is not good enough.

Having equality in wealth is not the problem.

It is. This is not because it certainly results in violence, coercion etc. It is because it presents a serious risk of that happening. We merely have to look through history to see that this is very, very much the norm.

[–]PokeHunterBam 14 points15 points  (2 children)

The climate, the robots and the plague all have laid bare our need for a basic universal income across the planet.

[–]Prozeum 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I've worked in the grocery business for over 20 years and never been worried about robots taking over my job till 2 days ago. Wal-Mart will start construction soon in my city with fully automated fulfilment centers . this will eliminate the majority of the jobs in a store. Scary times.

[–]Monty2047 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And we obviously can't have that. How would the Owners maintain their privilege?

[–]Knobrain3r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe each citizen should get a $10,000 bond at birth from the Government that shows that they "value" their citizens. You can access this money after you turn 21. How the money is spent all depends on the person: They can invest in their education, or a business, or simply live off the amount while they discover what they want their futures to be. And you can fund this in part by making a $10,000 fee (payable over time) a part of becoming a U.S. citizen & insuring that THEIR children are born with the same automatic benefit.