Sure, but don't you believe the discussion could be broadened? Studies show the CEOs of fortunate 500 companies tend to be something like 3 inches taller than the average man, and that per every inch of height a man has it's an extra $800/year and that's not even digging into the inherent social respect given to height and romantic prospects. I think we can all agree that good-looking people are subject to preferable treatment and we could certain enact policies to at least aim to target this. — BitconnectCarlos

Treating the height difference as if it's causing that difference in income is extremely bizarre. Imagine the social programs that would come of it:

"We demand genetic engineering for height so that our children can become CEOs! For too long have people who are shorter than CEOs not been CEOs, and we demand equality of opportunity for height!"

I could argue that fixing ugliness or equalizing height results in better lives for those people and levels the playing field in a number of areas. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, you could. But I didn't get the impression that you were seriously advocating it. I thought you were using it as a reductio absurdum argument against promoting equality in general. If so, then the very fact that you would have to argue the case answers your question for you. There's no reductio because the promotion of equality is argued for on a case by case basis, which is perfectly reasonable.

Treating the height difference as if it's causing that difference in income is extremely bizarre. Imagine the social programs that would come of it:

I'm not saying it's the sole trait, but I don't think it's a shocking or absurd hypothesis that height helps men climb dominance hierarchies. The same thing could be said for good-looks. It's one trait amount many that helps.

The same thing could be said for good-looks. It's one trait amount many that helps. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, that problem with good looks is a bummer. Luckily some people have found a great solution for this. These women look so same to me.



But seriously, our ideological drive towards equality, however benign the aims of it are, crashes with meritocracy. Everybody should understand that even a functioning meritocracy, however much there is social mobility and possibility for everyone to pursue one's own goals, is still inherently and categorically unequal.

Typically when we talk about equality we're talking about economic equality, which is of course a very real issue. My main question is why does the discussion have to stop here. ... We could actually take steps to limit people's heights. — BitconnectCarlos

The problem with the internet is that I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny and referencing Harrison Bergeron or if you're serious.

I always loved Harrison Bergeron. It was one of the inspirations for the thread, but the topic of the thread moved onto "what else should be included into intersectionality?" basically in a subtle attempt to boil intersectionality down to the individual.

Ah. That's what I get for not reading comments. But I wonder if the tactic of trying to reduce intersectionality to the individual is guilty of a Sorites paradox.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

I was just trying to broaden the discussion beyond the usual race, class, and gender topics. I don't see any harm in doing that. I mentioned height, charisma, and looks.

Typically when we talk about equality we're talking about economic equality, which is of course a very real issue. My main question is why does the discussion have to stop here.

Lets say we live in a world where everyone is hard-working, and we go by the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." We eliminate inheritance, and all inheritances are divvied up equally among the population. Lets go even further and say this has all worked out well: Everyone has attained a decent standard of living, poverty is eliminated, and everyone more or less works full-time unless they're unable (in which case they would still receive a pension.)

So do we have equality? I'm not too sure. Some people are still taller, better-looking, more charismatic, smarter, etc. than others. And now those who are on the bottom can't even really get very rich to try to better their position, socially speaking. We still have disability in this world. The playing field may have been leveled in one sphere, but not others.

We could actually take steps to limit people's heights. It would involve limiting calories. It's also probably easier to make smart people dumb than dumb people smart, but why not try both simultaneously? You never really hear major social inequality of height, intelligence, or charisma in the world. — BitconnectCarlos

As is well known in this forum at least, my political position is that being born is being used by society. In a "free society" people can choose what they want, except not wanting to do any of life's basic premises (lest they die or have physically damaging experiences like hunger, illness, and pain). However, skipping this important point, I see two sides here. There is Rawls' Veil of Ignorance argument and the economic conservative argument of winners and losers.

The Veil of Ignorance (VOI) argument is ASSUMING that people have different abilities, circumstances, backgrouinds that may keep them from fully gaining status and wealth in the higher rungs of society.

On the other side, economic conservative argument assumes that people have an almost boundless potential for abilities, making the correct decisions economically, and that circumstances of one's background doesn't make much of a difference if one CHOOSES to be in the correct areas to make money. For example, if people value doctors and financial brokers, then that is where one should be to get the money. Not doing so is simply not choosing correctly.

The VOI would argue back that, there are barriers of class, circumstances and limited knowledge that would prevent one from gaining positions in the higher rung. The conservative would rebut that that this is false and that people simply have to make decisions that benefit them and they can climb the ladder.

So the main differences are that the philosophies have two glaringly opposing assumptions of one's abilities to gain ability and make decisions to bring themselves to a higher rung.

I think Veil of Ignorance wins out. Thus, public education should be accessible to anyone. If one wants to be a doctor, and has has the aptitude one should be able to get there with public assistance if they cannot afford it already. Also, there is just luck and markets. Some people are mediocre and talented only to an extent to do a job. That person can get a job that offers $100,00 salary. Another person, more talented in the same sector, due to markets and luck can get the same job for much less.

The $100,000 salary person if they are NOT working on the Veil of Ignorance, but conservative argument my say (ignorantly) that anyone can do what they did. They have just got lucky though, nothing more. The market does not bear that kind of job market salary for everyone.

On the other side, economic conservative argument assumes that people have an almost boundless potential for abilities, making the correct decisions economically, and that circumstances of one's background doesn't make much of a difference if one CHOOSES to be in the correct areas to make money. For example, if people value doctors and financial brokers, then that is where one should be to get the money. Not doing so is simply not choosing correctly.

I'm an economic conservative and this isn't what I believe. If someone argued this I'd think they were naive. Not everyone can be a doctor or a broker. Life is unfair no matter what kind of society you grow up in and not many people have that kind of "boundless potential." You need to make the best of what you've got, and if we're talking about climbing the economic ladder I believe from a pragmatic standpoint that'll often be done over the course of generations and gradually. Only a completely absurd person would declare that someone born poor and someone born into an affluent family have the same possibility to achieve, say, $5M or $10M net worth.

EDIT: Tagged.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

I was just trying to broaden the discussion beyond the usual race, class, and gender topics. I don't see any harm in doing that. I mentioned height, charisma, and looks. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe I should have sought clarification first. When you mentioned "a subtle attempt to boil intersectionality down to the individual" did you mean something like show that the method of reasoning used by intersectionality advocates could be consistently applied (in a slippery slope sort of way) to individual traits--thus rendering the group identity politics, with which intersectionality is often packaged, absurd?

If this is what you meant then I guess I'm skeptical that group-level sets of traits don't exist (or that they collapse into individual traits). Or if "exists" is too loaded a term: I'm skeptical that groups of people don't have common sets of traits which could be discriminated against.

On the other side, economic conservative argument assumes that people have an almost boundless potential for abilities, making the correct decisions economically, and that circumstances of one's background doesn't make much of a difference if one CHOOSES to be in the correct areas to make money. For example, if people value doctors and financial brokers, then that is where one should be to get the money. Not doing so is simply not choosing correctly. — schopenhauer1

I should probably lay my cards on the table here too. I'm an independent, never voted Republican or Democrat. But my philosophy and sympathies are conservative.

I have a problem with how you don't and then do nuance what you say.

Consider this:

assumes that people have an almost boundless potential for abilities, making the correct decisions economically

With this:

circumstances of one's background doesn't make much of a difference if one CHOOSES to be in the correct areas to make money.

Regarding the first, I've never heard an economic conservative make this assumption. Can you give some examples?

Regarding the second, I have heard conservatives say that people living in the United States today have sufficient potential for economic success. And I don't take them to mean this in some strict logical sense, such that, if I were to outliers, like someone with Down's, it would disprove the claim. But I've never heard them claim that you just need to be "in the correct areas" in the narrow sense you imply by "doctors and financial brokers."

If "correct areas" simply means that there can be pursuits that are monetarily worthless (like "dance theory"--to censor a common joke by some on the right), then yes I've heard conservatives say that. But do you actually think they are wrong on this point?

If "correct areas" means some line of work that requires a high IQ (like doctor or scientist), then I've never heard any conservative claim this (with one caveat). In fact, they usually claim the opposite: anyone capable of working a full-time job at federal minimum wage can live comfortably.

The caveat would be that some conservatives (e.g., Charles Murray) have expressed concern over the economy moving in a direction where high skill or IQ is increasingly necessary. But then these sorts of conservatives wouldn't be your target either, since they are worried about this alleged trend.

The VOI would argue back that, there are barriers of class, circumstances and limited knowledge that would prevent one from gaining positions in the higher rung.

What exactly is the rung here? It can't be occupation, right? Obviously a Rawlsian wouldn't suggest we allocate jobs at NASA to a proportional representation of people with Down's. Is it standard of living? If so, what's the Rawlsian standard for who gets to be at "the higher rung"?

So the main differences are that the philosophies have two glaringly opposing assumptions of one's abilities to gain ability and make decisions to bring themselves to a higher rung.

I don't think that's accurate, from what I've said above. I would suggest that a bigger difference is that conservatives start with an assumption like each individual has a right to themselves, their labor, and the products thereof. Rawlsianism starts with different assumptions (cf. Nozick's critique).

I was just basically saying that the discussion on intersectionality which traditionally focuses on race, class, gender and sometimes disability could be broadened enormously. By only confining the conversation to those few factors we leave out other "oppressed" group traits. The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed on some front. I believe that even if we did have racial, gender, and economic justice we'd still have a very, very long way to go given none of nature's injustice have been "corrected." The world would still be ridiculously unfair.

Regarding the first, I've never heard an economic conservative make this assumption. Can you give some examples? — JohnRB

Yes it's conservatives who have told me this. No, they are not talking outliers; they think that any able-bodied individual can educate their way to a higher rung in areas of the job market that are needed.

Regarding the second, I have heard conservatives say that people living in the United States today have sufficient potential for economic success. And I don't take them to mean this in some strict logical sense, such that, if I were to outliers, like someone with Down's, it would disprove the claim. But I've never heard them claim that you just need to be "in the correct areas" in the narrow sense you imply by "doctors and financial brokers." — JohnRB

Again, I have heard conservatives who do say this.

If "correct areas" simply means that there can be pursuits that are monetarily worthless (like "dance theory"--to censor a common joke by some on the right), then yes I've heard conservatives say that. But do you actually think they are wrong on this point? — JohnRB

The points I've heard are similar to this- go into X field that makes money (go where the money is). For example, it's your fault you didn't "choose" a highly sought after job (e.g. mechanical engineering, doctor, computer engineer, etc.). Again, the assumption is that everyone has the same aptitudes and that if they don't, then they will find something comparable (usually these people got seriously lucky in getting a good paying job and assume others can "just" do the same as them). Clearly, expectations of how markets operate are out of step with reality for these folks.

If "correct areas" means some line of work that requires a high IQ (like doctor or scientist), then I've never heard any conservative claim this (with one caveat). In fact, they usually claim the opposite: anyone capable of working a full-time job at federal minimum wage can live comfortably. — JohnRB

And who makes federal minimum wage in non-federal jobs? Not many low paying laborers do, unless their employers are forced by the state to comply accordingly. Rather, these people are just earning ends meet to often live in an undesirable area/ circumstances. Market forces, luck, and initial wealth do play a factor for these people. Hence, public goods like free education would obviously make sense in these cases.

What exactly is the rung here? It can't be occupation, right? Obviously a Rawlsian wouldn't suggest we allocate jobs at NASA to a proportional representation of people with Down's. Is it standard of living? If so, what's the Rawlsian standard for who gets to be at "the higher rung"? — JohnRB

I mean standard of living, not occupation. The whole point of the Veil of Ignorance is to pretend like one might be born into any aptitude, any background, any class, and is ignorant of where one might come from. What would be the fairest way to have the opportunities to move up if one were initially born into lesser means to survive?

Maslow's hierarchy would dictate one would probably first take care of making enough for food, shelter, warmth, etc. Then, one might want to be suitably educated to move on to something that can afford more than basic necessities. However, the balance of doing so is difficult to obtain without indebting oneself even further, and taking on more financial burdens.

Many aspire to be an Edison or a Buffet, but most people aren't. That's the problem with the "boundless opportunities" mentality- it doesn't fit what actually happens. A society that allows for those to have a satisfying enough life, but allows for Bill Gates types would be optimal. Keep dreaming, but you have to live everyday life and get by.

@Bitter Crank Have you met any of these conservatives? Anything you might want to add?

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are never fully congruent and this is why "democracy" (if you can even call it that anymore) and capitalism encourage competition to hopefully facilitate innovation and abundance.

On paper we would think it works to alleviate the imbalance, and to a degree it does because even the poor of America are fat and rich, but eventually this system plateaus as well when people start to realize the competition also stifles innovation because it often hinders opportunity for the sake of victory, personal gain over another, or the financial upper hand at the cost of others.

We take advantage of each other for prosperity when in reality the prosperity could have been distributed to the bottom of the ladder (third world laborers etc) with more growth in mind for their personal existence.

We hog all of the resources. The entire chain works from the bottom up when it should work from both directions simultaneously.

We also steal from the earth and emit more chemicals than current biology is prepared to sustain, endangering all of us in order to win the competition.

We need to reinvent success to mean who can help biology sustain existence the most, not who can grab the most stuff.