the suffering of inequity

[Advocate]

If society can prevent those at the bottom from suffering it doesn't matter how much those at the top have, but the level of inequality may itself produce suffering such as when apparently equivalent effort does not produce equivalent reward.

[Immanuel Can]

...the level of inequality may itself produce suffering such as when apparently equivalent effort does not produce equivalent reward.

So you're arguing for meritocracy. You want a level playing field, not a compulsory equal outcome.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=479325 time=1605019764 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479324 time=1605018462 user_id=15238]
...the level of inequality may itself produce suffering such as when apparently equivalent effort does not produce equivalent reward.
[/quote]
So you're arguing for meritocracy. You want a level playing field, not a compulsory equal outcome.
[/quote]

Not exactly. There shouldn't be a merit requirement for the basics of a good life. Nobody asked to be here and they shouldn't have to pay a price for it. But certainly not a compulsory equal outcome, which would be anti-merit.

[Nick_A]

If society can prevent those at the bottom from suffering it doesn't matter how much those at the top have, but the level of inequality may itself produce suffering such as when apparently equivalent effort does not produce equivalent reward.

Is it just the ignorance of the ancients that could defend inequality or something else?

Matthew 20

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

The unions will have a field day with this one. How can a person working an hour get the same as a person working for a whole day? Absurd you say and obviously unfair. Can you follow the logic of it?

[Advocate]

[quote=Nick_A post_id=479332 time=1605025204 user_id=7881]
Can you follow the logic of it?
[/quote]

"logic"

[Immanuel Can]

...the level of inequality may itself produce suffering such as when apparently equivalent effort does not produce equivalent reward.

So you're arguing for meritocracy. You want a level playing field, not a compulsory equal outcome.

Not exactly. There shouldn't be a merit requirement for the basics of a good life. Nobody asked to be here and they shouldn't have to pay a price for it. But certainly not a compulsory equal outcome, which would be anti-merit.

Oh. So "basic subsistence" guaranteed, but everything else on merit? Okay.

Who pays the cost for the "basic substance" you say these people "should" get?

[Nick_A]

Can you follow the logic of it?

"logic"

Yes, logic

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=479339 time=1605026971 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479330 time=1605024399 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=479325 time=1605019764 user_id=9431]

So you're arguing for meritocracy. You want a level playing field, not a compulsory equal outcome.
[/quote]

Not exactly. There shouldn't be a merit requirement for the basics of a good life. Nobody asked to be here and they shouldn't have to pay a price for it. But certainly not a compulsory equal outcome, which would be anti-merit.
[/quote]
Oh. So "basic subsistence" guaranteed, but everything else on merit? Okay.

Who pays the cost for the "basic substance" you say these people "should" get?
[/quote]

You do, personally. Get to it.

[Immanuel Can]

You do, personally. Get to it.

Hardly. I don't have enough cash to give everybody a penny. You're going to have to get that kind of money from somewhere...so where are you going to get it?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=479348 time=1605029757 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479344 time=1605029045 user_id=15238]
You do, personally. Get to it.
[/quote]
Hardly. I don't have enough cash to give everybody a penny. You're going to have to get that kind of money from somewhere...so where are you going to get it?
[/quote]

I presume that means i'm a dictator and can do as i please without any political nonsense or feels? I'd create a net-worth and income cap of 10x the average. I'd create a 100% inheritance tax except with certain exceptions for sentimental items in certain exceptional circumstances. But you could will someone the right to first purchase at the state store.

Since i'm on a roll, i'll eliminate copyright.

A warm place to sleep and keep a few personal belongings securely will be a right granted to all persons in our jurisdiction, as well as sufficient sustenance, medical and mental health care, and protection from nature and other people. That can be a sandwich and a cot, but it's a right. You didn't ask to be here, you shouldn't be required to suffer or pay for it. Parental rights will have to be earned but wanting a child is an ego problem so our mental health system will have to work on that.

To the extent society's problems go away with those guarantees, over time, we will revisit those limits. In the meantime, infrastructure. We should have zero non-working or unnecessary roads or other impediments to free travel. Wandering the Earth is also a right. Shall i go on? I probably will anyway.

[Advocate]

As problems become less existential, we will strive to eliminate all onerous tasks. All ruins worth keeping will be restored to their original condition and appearance. The best aspects of society will be "nationalized" and provided to all citizens in a lottery system.

[henry quirk]

here, fidel, have a

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=479357 time=1605033744 user_id=472]
here, fidel, have a 🍩
[/quote]

Don't worry, you don't deserve more than 10x the average anyway. Nobody does. This shouldn't step on any worthy toes.

[henry quirk]

here, fidel, have a

Don't worry, you don't deserve more than 10x the average anyway. Nobody does. This shouldn't step on any worthy toes.

come get it, then

[Nick_A]

here, fidel, have a

Don't worry, you don't deserve more than 10x the average anyway. Nobody does. This shouldn't step on any worthy toes.

come get it, then

The Great Beast will always tell you what you deserve. But when people cannot understand the logic of a simple biblical parable, what else is a possible then alternating between various secular progressive ideas like communism, socialism, fascism and others for some reason all ending in ISM but with the futile intent of eliminating suffering.