GM Loses Another $16 Billion -- Bankrupt?

[KrazyHorse]

Arrian, why are talents any more morally significant than parental wealth?

[KrazyHorse]

Vanguard
Vanguard is online now New Post 25-11-2008 12:27 This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Oh, Vanguard. I'm assuming you're responding to me, you silly little inarticulate, ignorant man.

[Asher]

Vanguard :
Sometimes, someone is so wrong there's nothing you can do but shrug and try to coerce them to leave and never return.

[KrazyHorse]

If he thinks that's a tantrum then he really hasn't seen me at my best. What a stupid twit.

EDIT: based on Asher's post prior to DanSing

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If he thinks that's a tantrum then he really hasn't seen me at my best. What a stupid twit.

EDIT: based on Asher's post prior to DanSing

I DanSed just for you. I know you don't like to read people's posts when they are on your ignore.

I'm a fair human being.

[snoopy369]

I think you are overestimating the differentiation of (genetic) talent, as opposed to developed talent. I would say that, excluding the severely disabled, all people generally have the ability to develop talent in a financially beneficial way; whether it is quite as easy to do so, or quite as significant of a financial benefit (ie, Michael Jordan), may not be perfectly equal, but fairness != equality. I believe that everyone born with a full set of genes and no significant disability has the innate potential to develop some talent adequately to live a comfortable life; that is fair enough from my perspective.

In a sense it's like comparative advantage. Sure, everyone might not be equally able to produce the same thing; but if you focus on where you have a genetic advantage, so folks with the ability to run fast train for track or basketball or whatever, people who are very quantitative work on math or finance, people who are very creative work on writing or web design, etc.; then you will be successful (if you work hard at it, of course). I think that if you made education available equally to all (not currently done in fact, but a theoretical goal of the system), if you took away (most of) inheritance, and handed everyone a check for $50k upon adulthood (say), then you would have a very fair chance for everyone to succeed, and whether you succeeded or not would depend primarily on your work ethic and on your ability to determine which field you have a comparative advantage in.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Arrian, why are talents any more morally significant than parental wealth?

Sorry, I had my head buried in a file. Apparently, making tires and shoe soles can be messy. Who knew?

Anyway, to your question:

They're probably not. They are much harder to quantify, though.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is a valueless statement in the context of the current discussion.

It got your panties in a bunch. Which isn't much value, since it's so easy to do... but still enough

We are discussing how to design a legal system, not how to enforce it.

I'm discussing whatever the hell I want to. Sorry

Your statement reminds me of the "the rich are as free to starve as the poor" (paraphrased).

Yes, that would also be a possible (part of the) definition of "fair" in a capitalist system

Under your requirements, a legal system where children are put to death at birth unless their parents pay 50000$ is fair.

Read it again, not "my requirements".

"My requirements" for "fair" would be very different than capitalism's. (As should be abundantly clear from previous postings I have made on related subject matter.)

As for capitalism, it cares not for the morality you are trying to appeal to here. (It also wouldn't do such a thing since capitalism thrives on the backs of the poor worker. Killing those that can be exploited is bad business... "fair" or not.)

[KrazyHorse]

I think you are overestimating the differentiation of (genetic) talent, as opposed to developed talent. I would say that, excluding the severely disabled, all people generally have the ability to develop talent in a financially beneficial way; whether it is quite as easy to do so, or quite as significant of a financial benefit (ie, Michael Jordan), may not be perfectly equal, but fairness != equality.

I am defining "talent" as the innate/early developed part of your "talent" (which is what I would term "ability"). Do you mind using the same language I am? They are two separate concepts.

You have once more failed to define what you mean by "fairness". If it is NOT the equality of outcomes (or even EXPECTED outcomes) from equality of moral inputs, then WHAT IS IT?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian


Sorry, I had my head buried in a file. Apparently, making tires and shoe soles can be messy. Who knew?

Anyway, to your question:

They're probably not. They are much harder to quantify, though.

-Arrian

Sure. Which is part of why this whole idea of promoting "fairness" is ridiculous. Nobody that I've seen has even been able to define it in any way which is even vaguely measurable.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Aeson


It got your panties in a bunch. Which isn't much value, since it's so easy to do... but still enough

I think you overestimate my emotional reaction to your post. I made a simple statement about its relevance to the current discussion.

I'm discussing whatever the hell I want to. Sorry

My judgment on the value of your statement was for the benefit of all participants. Not simply yours.

Yes, that would also be a possible (part of the) definition of "fair" in a capitalist system

It is not merely PART of your definition. It is the ONLY part of your definition.

Read it again, not "my requirements".

"My requirements" for "fair" would be very different than capitalism's. (As should be abundantly clear from previous postings I have made on related subject matter.)

I apologise for misreading your post as describing your own definition.

As for capitalism, it cares not for the morality you are trying to appeal to here.

Which is why it is not "fair".

[Arrian]

Sure. Which is part of why this whole idea of promoting "fairness" is ridiculous.

It may be ridiculous, but I think we ought to try (even as we recognize we will never fully achieve it).

Incidently, snoopy, I'd say that "equality of opportunity" isn't a capitalist ideal, but a liberal one.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think we ought to try

Why, if so much of it is impossible to even measure or define properly, while attempting to correct "unfairness" appears to be hugely expensive (specifically the parts of "unfairness" which are strongly inframarginal)? If increasing (say) public education budgets leads only weakly toward levelling the inequality of outcomes due solely to parental wealth but is massively expensive (both of these statements appear to be true) then why should we do it? Shouldn't we simply hand out cheques to the disadvantaged?

[Arrian]

Good questions. I don't have good answers.

The best I can do:

It is important that the people believe that our society is reasonably fair. If/when that is not so, it seems to me that problems arise. Problems that get bloody.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No. Naively it was set up that way. As it grew, any reasonable concept of fairness was lost.

You're talking crap here.

Again, while the average person might think that **** should be set up to be "fair", any reasonable study of how **** is actually set up shows that fairness is only tangential.

Only if you've been living in a cave for the past 50 years.

Welfare states are a mish-mash of preferences.

More accurately: welfare states are established to satisfy various preferences that the market cannot satisfy as efficiently as state action. Our fairness preferences fall into this class. Hence our economy is in part set up to respect that value. It's not rocket science.

"Fairness" is one of them, and may be the one most often used to appeal to the general public.

I said this. Why should I be accused of not making clear something I explicitly said in my post?

But such appeals are laughable on their face. If we actually wanted fairness we would impose a 100% inheritance tax,

No. Because fairness is not the only value that we have. Again, I made this clear in my previous post.

close down private schools, impose backward-looking income redistribution and tax the talented more heavily independent of their income.

We do in fact do the last. Most states have a (admittedly less than perfect) inheritance tax. Ronald Dworkin demonstrated decades ago that this can be justified as a tax on talents (more accurately, as insurance that persons would pay against a lack of talent if they were in a position to buy such insurance). In practice (since the hypothetical insurance market would fail if everyone tried to insure themselves against not being super talented so that they would gain a super talented person's income).

Dworkin demonstrated that talent is a justifiable basis for redistribution, given certain uncontroversial normative claims.

Concern for others is not the same as fairness.

Concern for others can, and often is, motivated by a sense of justice. In fact, it may have to be in most cases because it is concern for others in the abstract rather than towards individuals I know as individuals.

Or we could take it the other way and argue that our sense of fairness is in some sense an expression of our concern for others.

One is probably correct. So you're just splitting hairs here.

Again, they are set up to promote "fairness". Which is different than fairness.

Yes, one has quotation marks around it that don't appear to be doing any real work.